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

  • We left the F&P row blank precisely because of the large body of negative and often flawed criticism that has accumulated over the intervening years.

    The 1992 experiment in particular is not a good choice for that reason, though I agree that an example is needed for the work of F&P.


    Are you aware of the opinion of one of the most knowledgeable expert in the field about the importance of the 1992 experiment?

    From: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf (page 14 – bold added)


    McKubre pointed out that Fleischmann was a master of theory and mathematics, in ways that people with post-1940s educations seldom attain. Fleischmann would often point to something and say “that is obvious” when it was not a bit obvious to McKubre. Fleischmann’s mathematical analysis of calorimetry was far more complex than most people's. He told me he preferred simple hardware and complicated “software” — by which he meant computation; thinking and running equations in his head. Not computers, which, as I said, he distrusted. Hand in hand with his analytical legerdemain, he strongly believed in simple, direct experiments, such as the boil-off technique and graphs that spoke for themselves. He liked nothing better than an experiment stripped down to its essentials, so that it could not be refuted. The title of his major paper says it all: “From simplicity via complications back to simplicity" …


    Quote

    Let's see if we can find a group consensus that will be less argument-prone.


    This is the best reason to propose this experiment to the Team Google. Its replica will definitively resolve most of these controversial and still pending arguments.

  • Whilst this is very nice and politic I think you're missing the point. Ascoli65 would never post an experiment he thought was working. He posted this one precisely *because* it would be argument-prone.


    I think his point would be that people here argue strongly that it did work. He of course thinks it does not. Google would resolve the issue with a faithful replication.

  • I think his point would be that people here argue strongly that it did work. He of course thinks it does not. Google would resolve the issue with a faithful replication.

    The point of this thread was not to suggest experiments to TG that they think wouldn't work and would advance their agenda to keep LENR de-legitimized.

  • Quote

    The point of this thread was not to suggest experiments to TG that they think wouldn't work and would advance their agenda to keep LENR de-legitamized.

    Nonsense. If TG and Google wanted to keep "LENR de-legitamized" -whatever that is- they would not spend millions on finding out and trying out the best prospects in the field. They want to make money, and maybe save the Earth- that's all.

  • At least do us the decency of being honest about your pathoskepticism.


    Whatever definition you like for it, everyone on L-F knows my position about CF/LENR.


    Furthermore, my first comment on this thread (*) - and the consequent proposal to replicate the "1992 boil-off experiment" - was openly made in support of the THH proposal of an experiment that "would most convince you that LENR was not real."


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

  • Whatever definition you like for it, everyone on L-F knows my position about CF/LENR.


    Furthermore, my first comment on this thread (*) - and the consequent proposal to replicate the "1992 boil-off experiment" - was openly made in support of the THH proposal of an experiment that "would most convince you that LENR was not real."


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

    So basically a double-act? Where one patho-skeptic bumps the ball up and the other spikes it? All hoping to hijack and sabotage a genuine attempt to perhaps save the planet? Got it.

  • Whatever definition you like for it, everyone on L-F knows my position about CF/LENR.


    Furthermore, my first comment on this thread (*) - and the consequent proposal to replicate the "1992 boil-off experiment" - was openly made in support of the THH proposal of an experiment that "would most convince you that LENR was not real."


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


    I stand by that. But an experiment that (obviously, now) many here have doubts about failing would not convince anyone LENR was not real.


    It is sometimes difficult accurately to gauge what others think is most likely to succeed. My option D/Pd electrolysis (but not F&P boil-off) , remains what I think is most likely. But I'm not sure my opinion is well informed.

  • So basically a double-act? Where one patho-skeptic bumps the ball up and the other spikes it?


    What do you mean? A forum like this is based on a chain of comments and replies. I avoided to comment in this thread until someone else was allowed to raise the subject of LENR's reality. At that point, I suggested to replicate the most praised and celebrated experiment in the CF's history.


    Quote

    All hoping to hijack and sabotage a genuine attempt to perhaps save the planet?


    Any serious attempt to solve a problem should begin with the identification and removal of illusory solutions.


    In any case, the previous Google's results published by Nature were presented to the world public as an attempt to resolve the "CF cold case". So, it is up to the Team Google to decide if they want to solve this case or keep it cold for the next decades.

  • Ascoli65 would never post an experiment he thought was working. He posted this one precisely *because* it would be argument-prone.


    Right. But to be more precise, because he thinks it would be argument-prone. He thinks the boil-off experiments are wrong. No one else I know thinks that.

  • I stand by that. But an experiment that (obviously, now) many here have doubts about failing would not convince anyone LENR was not real.


    Where "many here" is defined as THH, Seven_of_Twenty and Ascoli65. That is how many doubt the boil off experiments, as far as I know. They also doubt McKubre and every other published experiment. In short, they do not believe any of the results. Their reasons are not . . . rational, or scientific, shall we say.

  • I stand by that. But an experiment that (obviously, now) many here have doubts about failing would not convince anyone LENR was not real.


    I'm well aware that it's impossible to convince everyone that LENR is not real and, actually, this is not my goal. As we know, theorists excludes that LENR is possible (at any measurable extent), but LENR supporters counter that these phenomena are real because they have been experimentally observed by many reputable scientists that have published their results in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. Furthermore, they stubbornly claim (even very recently (1)) that these mainstream cold fusion experiments have never been debunked by professional scientists or by the editors at Nature and Scientific American (2).


    Well, IMO, this is the challenge that a global player like Google should accept. The most mainstream CF experiment of the most famous CF scientists is the "1992 boil-off experiment". Google's experts are certainly able to replicate it. Let's see if they are also able to explain to people and the scientific community where the excess heat claimed by F&P (and endorsed by all the other CF protagonists) came from.


    (1) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    (2) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

  • In any case, the previous Google's results published by Nature were presented to the world public as an attempt to resolve the "CF cold case". So, it is up to the Team Google to decide if they want to solve this case or keep it cold for the next decades.


    TG feels they are up to the task, and committed to "solving this case". They have the talent, funding, and equipment to do so. Worse case is that their quest will lead them to new findings in other, more conventional sciences (as has already happened), and best case they determine there is some type of effect that may save the planet. Seems a win-win situation either way.


    They are already in the planning phase as to what comes next. There will be a focus on basic research to explore the science more thoroughly, and when/if a suitable experiment is found, will attempt to replicate as well. As we discovered with this thread though, the devil is in the details when deciding on which one. Same for them, as it was with us. While at first glance it looks good, upon closer examination...maybe not so.


    And while many high quality experiments do meet the criteria, the author/s, for various reasons, often are not able to fully cooperate, That is, and will always be a deal killer, and a continuing problem. And one that goes to what many here (including myself) have noted, and complained about before...too much secrecy in the field. As McKubre has said many times..."we are all keeping secrets from each other". You would think that 30 years later, with little progress to show for it, that would not be a problem, but unfortunately it is.


    Interestingly, TG has had a strong, positive response to their Nature paper, and research initiatives...from mainstream science of all places! That is in contrast to the lukewarm reception received from the field, although McKubre's welcome letter was an exception. Who knows; maybe yesterdays mainstream critics, will become tomorrows supporters? Some of whom BTW, have offered their expertise on this next project. Which means that along with their present team -most of whom are new to the field, there will be other new faces, with fresh ideas, and outlooks.


    That is something the field has been deprived of much too long. No fault of the old guard, as they have tried to bring new blood in, but with little success due circumstances beyond their control. Google intends to change that by providing cover for a new generation to enter the study, and in doing so open up their own chapter for the history books.

  • TG feels they are up to the task, and committed to "solving this case". They have the talent, funding, and equipment to do so.

    They have the funding and equipment. Whether they have the talent remains to be seen. Many brilliant scientists and research organizations have done bad research, in cold fusion and other areas. The NHE is generally good, and it has high standards, but it spent millions on cold fusion in 1990s and got nowhere.


    As we discovered with this thread though, the devil is in the details when deciding on which one. Same for them, as it was with us. While at first glance it looks good, upon closer examination...maybe not so.

    Let me repeat: No one can possibly know which experiment is promising, or how to solve this puzzle. As Francis Bacon established in 1620, the only way to discover nature's secrets is to do experiments, and you can never know -- even in principle -- whether the experiments will work or what they will reveal. If there was any way to know, you wouldn't have to do the experiment. To know the answer before you do the experiments, you would have to have God-like omniscience. There has never been an instance in human history that people discovered something as complicated as the nature of cold fusion except by experiment.


    There are facts of nature that can be established without experiment, but only in established areas. You can apply standard physics to draw a graph based on conventional textbook laws, and it will be right. An aspect of new, unexplored science can only be understood by doing experiments, and you cannot tell which experiment is the right one. An expert can make an educated guess, but he might be wrong. If it turns out he is wrong, that means he isn't an expert after all. He just thought he was. In this case, there probably are no experts, since no one knows how to make an effective cell every time. Calling yourself an expert and pontificating about what experiment is best would be like claiming you know what the dark side of the moon looks like, prior to 1959, when the first photos of it were taken.

  • They have the funding and equipment. Whether they have the talent remains to be seen. Many brilliant scientists and research organizations have done bad research, in cold fusion and other areas.


    They have the talent, the question IMO is whether the community will accept their findings? In my first post on this thread, I asked that same question given me by Trevithick to present to the forum. No one has provided an answer to it yet.