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

  • 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?


    I am not disappointed. It is much better than it was a few years ago. Most meshes did not produce any heat back then. This one started off with a 30 W bang. That would have been a fabulous result a few years ago.


    The COP is meaningless. I suggest you ignore it.


    Mizuno did replicate his own results, although there is not as much heat. It might improve. This is a positive result, and very interesting. If anyone could get 30 W the whole world would be convinced cold fusion is real. The actual level of heat doesn't matter.


    If you think that cold fusion is so easy it produces the same level of heat every time, you don't know anything about it.

  • 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).


    Right. The mass of air varies mainly with the air temperature. Mizuno accounts for that in the spreadsheet. I took the average values for 1 hour and applied the textbook values for air at STP, ignoring temperature and other factors. My answer was close to the spreadsheet. So these other factors make little difference.

  • Right. The mass of air varies mainly with the air temperature. Mizuno accounts for that in the spreadsheet. I took the average values for 1 hour and applied the textbook values for air at STP, ignoring temperature and other factors. My answer was close to the spreadsheet. So these other factors make little difference.

    Why is the fan RPM not monitored? Note the tachometer lead (yellow) dangling in the photos of the calorimeter. The fan RPM is a much better indication of the air flow state than the fan power.

  • How would you monitor that? I think an anemometer is best.

    Obviously the anemometer is required. But the fan power is being used in an equation to determine air velocity based on the fan power and the velocity measurements taken at various fan input powers (which should be steady anyways during the experiment). The fan RPM at various anemometer traverse averages would be more indicative of the flow rate.


    The fan could struggle for some reason (lint build-up, bearings drying out, etc.) which would drive up the fan power consumption, which changes the air calculation to a positive velocity increase when it would actually be a velocity decrease. The fan RPM, on the other hand, would decrease in such a situation, correctly indicating an air flow decrease.

  • The fan could struggle for some reason (lint build-up, bearings drying out, etc.)


    Yes. Mizuno always checks for that, before every test. (Also check computer fans for that, and vacuum them out.) Measure the power to the fan and air flow rate to make sure they have not changed.


    You should not obsess too much about these issues. A calibration reveals all. A low power calibration will recover nearly all the heat in the stream of air. So, just apply the standard equations and see if output balances input, minus a tad. If it does you are good to go.


    If the fan slows down or starts to fail, you will see that, I guarantee. You can't miss it.

  • I can understand the frustration coming from people who have probably never done basic scientific research. The problem becomes especially intense when the research effort is applied to a phenomenon before it is understood. Generally, basic science is guided by a theory, which while not reducing the difficulty, at least increases the acceptability of the effort. In the case of LENR, while theories exist, none are used as guides. What is worse, a myth about LENR not being real still lingers in the minds of people. Unfortunately, no one having the required influence has come forward to be an advocate for the effect and cause a change in attitude. As an example, we need an Eddington, who became an advocate for Einstein's ignored theory. We need someone of importance in science to lead the sheep away from the cliff. I do not see this happening anytime soon.


    It is overwhelmingly obvious that LENR is difficult to cause because we do not know the treatment required to create the special condition in which the nuclear process must operate. What is worse, no one is searching for a method to cause this condition. Various people, including Mizuno, have claimed to have created the required condition, apparently by pure luck. People then expect to make LENR happen simply by repeating what these people have done. It is a fact, the conditions at the atomic level where LENR functions can not be replicated unless total control of the process is possible. We do not have this control. The experience with development of the transistor has demonstrated this problem very clearly. I had expected this experience would have taught people the importance of learning what is happening to the material at the atomic level when trying to understand LENR. But no, people seem never to learn from past experience. They keep applying the same false interpretations. They keep asking the same wrong questions and applying the same kind of skeptical arguments. Nothing changes until someone of importance tells people what the lesser important people have been saying for years. We are still waiting for that important person to come forward. Apparently, that person will not be from Google.


    Let me give an example of the required approach. I have a theory describing how LENR works. It might be wrong, but nevertheless in can be used as a guide. Most other theories cannot be used this way. The following describes how my model can be used to identify the important variables operating during the Mizuno method. This description allows a person to focus attention on what might be important to a successful replication. Jed will use these suggestions in his talk at ICCF-22. Hopefully, people will start thinking along these lines. Of course, each successful method would have a different set of important variables. Nevertheless, the same kind of interpretation is required. Until this is done, I do not expect to see much progress in replicating LENR.


    Storms has made an effort to identify the important variables involved in the Mizuno method, which is critical to a successful replication. These are:

    1. The amount of sanding changes the amount of surface on which the Pd is applied, with increased sanding expected to cause increased excess power. However, too much sanding will weaken the wires so that they will bend rather than acquire Pd.

    2. The amount of D reacted with the metals will determine the amount of NAE that can be produced. However, the NAE is produce only during a deloading event. Therefore, for success to be achieved, deuterium must first be acquired by the metals followed by removal of the D. This process is critical to success for reason explained in the supplied paper.

    3. The effect of temperature is critical, with the activation energy calculated from an Arrhenius plot being an important diagnostic for the LENR process. The LENR process is expected to show a logarithmic increased in excess power as the temperature is increased, with runaway possible at a critical high temperature.

  • Yes. Mizuno always checks for that, before every test. (Also check computer fans for that, and vacuum them out.) Measure the power to the fan and air flow rate to make sure they have not changed.


    You should not obsess too much about these issues. A calibration reveals all. A low power calibration will recover nearly all the heat in the stream of air. So, just apply the standard equations and see if output balances input, minus a tad. If it does you are good to go.


    If the fan slows down or starts to fail, you will see that, I guarantee. You can't miss it.

    Jed, why would one expect the fan (blower) power to change significantly during an experiment?

    I see the purpose of monitoring it, but I don’t see the point in using fan power for a proxy for air velocity.

    How much does the fan power fluctuate during a typical experiment?

    How much do those fluctuations affect the calculated flow rate?

  • Jed, why would one expect the fan (blower) power to change significantly during an experiment?

    You do not expect this! If it happens, you know something is wrong. That's why I wrote: "If the fan slows down or starts to fail, you will see that, I guarantee. You can't miss it."


    I see the purpose of monitoring it, but I don’t see the point in using fan power for a proxy for air velocity.

    Why not? It works.


    How much does the fan power fluctuate during a typical experiment?

    I don't have a spreadsheet handy, but I think it is less than 1%.


    As I said, the equation STP mass of air * STP specific heat of air (which happens to be a little more than 1) * Degrees C gives the right answer. You can add in all kinds of small factors, but it hardly changes. I think it was 38 W with one thing and another, and 34 W at STP.

  • Various people, including Mizuno, have claimed to have created the required condition, apparently by pure luck.

    That is unfair to Mizuno, and highly inaccurate. Pure luck had nothing to do with it. First, he does know a great deal of science, especially electrochemistry. He survived post-graduate work with Bockris. No one does that who is not good at chemistry. Second, he used methods similar to those used by premodern technologists, such as the people who built Ancient Rome and London before 1600, and who invented most of the technology we use today such as mining, printing, glass, iron, steel, bridges, tools of every sort, ships capable of bringing millions of people to the Americas, and so on. Nearly every machine, technology, building method and other aspect of civilization was developed by people who had no knowledge of science, and no knowledge of atoms or the nature of combustion (for example).


    These people, and Mizuno, used intelligent trial and error. That is, trial and error guided by observation and common sense. He does a test, and looks at the data and methods carefully. He does another test, changing one variable. The result improves. He changes the variable again. This is time consuming and expensive. Research guided by theory would be a lot easier. But this method does work. Technology reached high levels of sophistication and complexity long before any modern theory was possible.

  • Why not? It works.

    I think I just explained why not above.


    Let’s say that the fan has a bunch of lint and hair wrapped around the shaft/bearing area, and the fan slows down 5% compared to normal free running. The RPM will drop 5%. The fan power consumption increases by 5% (wild guess). The calorimeter box interior temperature increases by a degree due to the reduced air flow.


    1) The pre-determined blower velocity-input power calibration formula increases the velocity result by 5%, which then translates to 5% more air volume, which translates to 5% excess heat, plus some more due to the higher air temperature from the box being measured at the outlet.


    2) The RPM to velocity calibration formula correctly decreases the velocity result by 5%, translating to a correct 5% less air volume, but the higher box interior temperature (due to slower moving air) balances the air flow drop and the correct output power is calculated.

  • Let’s say that the fan has a bunch of lint and hair wrapped around the shaft/bearing area, and the fan slows down 5% compared to normal free running. The RPM will drop 5%. The fan power consumption increases by 5% (wild guess). The calorimeter box interior temperature increases by a degree due to the reduced air flow.

    You can tell that instantly. The fan would probably draw more power. Plus you would glance at the anemometer, see that the air speed was lower and either cancel the test or fix the problem.


    You check all parameters and all instruments, several times a day.

  • First time I post here. I probably won’t take part in the discussions very much, but I’d like to share an idea for the planned experiments.


    I have no direct preference for any particular experiment. Because LENR seems so elusive I would in the initial phase opt for experiments, in which different variants or samples of materials could be investigated in a short time under the same conditions.

    Take the Mizuno experiment for instance. This dictates that a nickel wire mesh is rubbed with palladium. This is a manual process that can lead to uneven distribution, which even might be desirable. But I would initially rub the mesh mechanically and create a segmentation on the mesh where palladium is applied in different intensities. This can be done, for example, by wrapping the mesh around a cylinder and rubbing it on a lathe from left to right in successive steps for a longer period of time. Then turn the gauze 90 degrees and do this again with a different intensity. This way you can make a distribution of palladium that runs in density for example from 1-25 or 1-100 on one mesh.


    I would attach that mesh to a flat heating plate, which has been checked beforehand for an even heat distribution. I would then use an infrared camera to observe and record the temperature of the entire surface of the mesh, when it is heated. Are there specific places that are getting warmer or colder? If so, is it constant or does it fluctuate in time and is there a relationship with the intensity or direction of rubbing? If there are any light effects, what is the spectral composition?


    Furthermore, I would rub the mesh in different ways and angles: perpendicular, with rotation, but still mechanical and reproducible. This makes it possible to detect anomalies and to see when and where they occur. Then, if you do find them, you can zoom in on the conditions under which they occur, reproduce these on one mesh and make actual measurements in an original Mizuno configuration. I would do qualitative investigations first to find the best candidates for quantitative experiments. For other experiments (non-Mizuno) you might think up a similar procedure.

  • 3. The effect of temperature is critical, with the activation energy calculated from an Arrhenius plot being an important diagnostic for the LENR process. The LENR process is expected to show a logarithmic increased in excess power as the temperature is increased, with runaway possible at a critical high temperature.


    That was what I thought when looking at the R19 results, however they do not follow any Arrhenius plot.

    Reactor case temp/C Reactor case temp/K Excess power/W
    232 505 40
    380 653 100
    27 300 0


    The mesh temperature may be a bit higher than the reactor temperature, how much is not clear because it depends on the thermal contact between the two and the generated heat.


    However, from these figures we get exp((653-505)/alpha) = 100/40 => alpha = 150/alpha = 0.916 => alpha = 163K


    Using this to determine the expected heat output at room temperature (300K) we get just over 10W. Easily observable. Yes these reactors when heater is switched off do not generate "heat after death".


    There are many possible additions to the simplest possible assumed mechanism that would account for this. They could be explored easily by determining a more detailed power out vs reactor temperature graph. If, however, that curve goes smoothly to 0 out at room temperature it is quite strong evidence that this is NOT a temperature-dependent exothermic reaction.


    It could be a reaction triggered by some other aspect of the heater (infra-red emission being the most plausible, although that has issues too), or it could be some not understood calorimetry artifact - such would normally be expected to deliver power out some roughly linear function of power in.


    So actually I think exploring an Arrhenius plot of Mizuno's reactor, whether R19 or the new, lower power, R20, would be very helpful. If it showed roughly linear power dependence with power in that would make it much less likely that it was LENR. Conversely if it showed (for much of the curve) a recognisable log T relationship that would make it much more likely this was indeed some LENR effect, and allow the activation energy to be calculated.


    We would need power out measured for power in, reactor case temp, and power out measured for say Pin = 0, 25, 50, 75, 100W. We could than see how that looked on an Arrhenius plot, and if necessary estimate a temperature increment between mesh and reactor case proportional to the input or output power. Much easier to do this fro external heating (R19) where the only variable is extent to which excess heat from mesh elevates mesh temperature over case temperature.


  • This is a good point - there is one more parameter here that needs to be controlled. The issue is whether the airflow restriction, and hence fan back pressure, is the same between the power / airflow fan calibration run and the runs using that info. Jed however says that for some of these measurements (R20 I guess) the air speed was independently measured. Presumably that matched the calculated speed from fan power - though we have no details of that check. As with most of this stuff, I don't expect it to be an issue, but I wish it could be ruled out, especially when historic calibration curves are used...

  • That is unfair to Mizuno, and highly inaccurate. Pure luck had nothing to do with it. First, he does know a great deal of science, especially electrochemistry. He survived post-graduate work with Bockris. No one does that who is not good at chemistry. Second, he used methods similar to those used by premodern technologists, such as the people who built Ancient Rome and London before 1600, and who invented most of the technology we use today such as mining, printing, glass, iron, steel, bridges, tools of every sort, ships capable of bringing millions of people to the Americas, and so on. Nearly every machine, technology, building method and other aspect of civilization was developed by people who had no knowledge of science, and no knowledge of atoms or the nature of combustion (for example).


    These people, and Mizuno, used intelligent trial and error. That is, trial and error guided by observation and common sense. He does a test, and looks at the data and methods carefully. He does another test, changing one variable. The result improves. He changes the variable again. This is time consuming and expensive. Research guided by theory would be a lot easier. But this method does work. Technology reached high levels of sophistication and complexity long before any modern theory was possible.

    Jed, my comment has no relationship to Mizuno's skill as a scientist or his skill at measuring excess energy. The question is, "Why did he think this method would cause LENR"? I have seen no justification from him or anyone to think this method would work, other than my theory, which he apparently did not use or fully understand. Nevertheless, his method was a brilliant idea. It is a method not explored before, so trying this is important. Nevertheless, success has to have a great deal of luck because he shows very little understanding about what is expected to happen. Also, use of a mesh would appear to be counterproductive ifor causing the largest effect . He apparently used this form of Ni so that he could get good thermal contact with the wall of the container. This reason is important but not related to an understanding of LENR. But perhaps I'm underestimating his reasons. Perhaps he can explain why he used this method and why he thought it would cause LENR.


    Many methods have been used to treat Pd in ways thought to create active material. Some improved success and some do not. None have been replicated with sufficient success to convince the skeptics and provide a method that can support research, i.e. be a lab rat. While some people claim success, others using the same treatment prodigal fail, apparently because some variation of the treatment was important but was not applied in the correct way. That is why I say luck is involved because no one knows exactly why their method works. Until this knowledge is obtained and applied, we can expect repeated failure. Until people wake up and realize this difficulty has no relationship to the reality of LENR, skepticism will continue.

  • Quote

    Give the money to friend and ask her to donate it.

    Hit me over the head with a 2x4 but I never thought of that. I will. Is the campaign still underway?


    Quote

    But why do you care?

    Nasty and uncalled for and illustration of the attitude that often is the reason LENR is scorned or ignored.

  • RE: thermal camera.


    Paradigmnoia Thanks. I was unaware of the distinction. One inexpensive imager is 7-14 and the other one is (!) unspecified as to spectral range, so yeah. They do have emissivity adjustments in software.


    JedRothwell Obviously I was asking for thermal imaging of the R20 at 3kW, not the older version with 300W out and a feeble power ratio. That one would not make a cup of tea. OK, never mind. This is probably going to turn out to be a rout. But I wish you well.

  • You can tell that instantly. The fan would probably draw more power. Plus you would glance at the anemometer, see that the air speed was lower and either cancel the test or fix the problem.


    You check all parameters and all instruments, several times a day.

    The anemometer being hooked up all the time is a good idea. Which position of the outlet does it monitor?

    However, the impression from the papers is that the blower power is being used to calculate, via a semi-empirical formula, the air velocity based on prior testing. So an increase in blower power would be expected to represent an increase in blower speed.