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

  • 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.


    As long as you cannot give the exact model/math that excludes LENR I will repeat to call you a hot fusion troll trying to divert the field.


    Good luck to find one!

  • Well, I will accept their findings, if well written.

    No, you will not. You do not accept the findings of Fleischmann, McKubre, Miles, Storms, Will or anyone else. They are not just well written. They are superbly executed, well written, peer-reviewed, and done by the world's leading experts in calorimetry, electrochemistry, tritium detection and the other disciplines they required. You reject them all, even though you have never found an error in any of these studies. So, I am sure you will reject whatever the Google people come up with. Unless, of course, they report a negative result. Then you will instantly believe it, even if their methods are sloppy and clearly wrong.

  • No, you will not. You do not accept the findings of Fleischmann, McKubre, Miles, Storms, Will or anyone else. They are not just well written. They are superbly executed, well written, peer-reviewed, and done by the world's leading experts in calorimetry, electrochemistry, tritium detection and the other disciplines they required. You reject them all, even though you have never found an error in any of these studies. So, I am sure you will reject whatever the Google people come up with. Unless, of course, they report a negative result. Then you will instantly believe it, even if their methods are sloppy and clearly wrong.


    None of those found reproducible excess heat (or anything else). Or so people here now say. I accept the (non-reproducible) results but lack of reproducibility means they cannot be cross-checked and lack of predictability from any LENR theory (Ed wants to go in that direction but has not got much yet) means positive results cannot be self-validating.


    Now you don't accept that. But I'd expect the google guys would. And many others.


    For example, if Mizuno excess power data is fitted significantly better by Arrhenius plot than linear that would be a prediction (made by Ed) discovered in the data. It would immediately make anything except real excess from some reaction much less likely. Show heat lats long enough and you have LENR, or hydrinos, or whatever. Something truly extraordinary.


    Or, maybe there is some other LENR-specific prediction... Until there is such, found, while the data is irreproducible, skepticism is the correct response.


    THH

  • None of those [McKubre etc.] found reproducible excess heat (or anything else).

    Yes, they did. They all did, to some extent, but especially McKubre, Miles, Storms and Fleischmann did. That is the basis of McKubre's equation showing the control factors for heat. It is the basis of Storms' "How To" paper.


    Here's the thing: You cannot just make stuff up. You can't just say, "they did not find reproducible excess heat (or anything else)" when in fact their reports and papers clearly show they did. Well, okay, you can say it, but anyone who reads the literature will see that you are either ignorant or you are lying. Anyway, it is not scientific or rational or proper debating technique to say things which are directly contradicted by dozens of scientific papers.


    Perhaps you are trying to fool the audience here. I can't tell what you are up to, or whether you actually believe this nonsense. But it seems pointless to say things which anyone can fact check, and anyone can see are wrong. I wouldn't say "you aren't fooling anyone" because you probably are fooling the ignorant, lazy people who do not read the literature. That's your audience. Why do you care what they think? Why do you alienate smart people?

  • For entertainment

    This forum is rather like doing day long calorimetry most times.. or watching the paint dry

    The twitter war against ISIS was far more entertaining.. death threats to kefirs by Wahhabist beheading daily..'

    (with vids and picts)


    In comparison being called juvenile is rather passe'...


    There are other possible motives such as allegiances to the fossil fuel industry..or hot fusion euros.

    or other big money players.

    Given the billions of $ at stake.. intentional and paid trolls are a definite possiblility.

    I am not saying that THHnew, Ascoli etc are this .. however


    For whatever motivation..

    the more confusion that one creates about LENR.. the better it is to deter investment.

    and LF has seen many confusing statements and innuendos from some parties

  • This was my first post on this thread I started. Read Matt's question after I say "it would be helpful to know:".


    For what it's worth, I would want a demonstrated fluency with the relevant literature, consultation/critique with/from the appropriate people within the field, and a demonstration that they had worked with the experiment in question for long enough to, for the lack of a better turn of phrase, really get a feel for its ins and outs. My biggest worry with anybody trying to replicate is that they do an experiment(s), get no result, and then briskly move on to something else.


    Whatever experiment TG chooses, I think a demonstrated history of replicability and access to those who have done the work previously is probably vital to success; and I would want to see those two things reflected in the choice of experiment and in the published results.

  • TG does not know if the Berkeley Lawrence findings

    TG does not find the initial results of 1000 EV screening unsurprising or explained by conventional theory..

    as posited by THHNew

    otherwise TG would not be interested in finding out more..

    It is good they are funding more research by Lawrence Berkeley in the lower kinetic enrgy regions

    This will extend the titanium work done( with much less finance by Karabut, Lipson et al in 2005 in Russia.)


    The DD reaction yield (3-MeV protons) and the soft X-ray emission from a titanium (Ti) cathode surface in a periodic pulsed glow discharge in deuterium were studied at a discharge voltage of 0.8–2.45 kV and a discharge current density of 300–600 mA/cm2. The electron screening potential e = 610 ± 150 eV was estimated in the range of deuteron energies 0.8 keV <<< 2.45 keV from an analysis of the DD reaction yield as a function of the accelerating voltage. The obtained data show evidence for a significant enhancement of the DD reaction yield in Ti in comparison to both theoretical estimates (based on the extrapolation of the known DD reaction cross section for Ed ≥ 5 keV to low deuteron energies in the Bosch-Halle approximation) and the results of experiments using accelerators at the deuteron energies Elab ≥ 2.5 keV and current densities 50–500 μ A/cm2. Intense emission of soft X-ray quanta (1013–1014 s−1 cm−2) was observed at an average energy of 1.2–1.5 keV. The X-ray emission intensity and the DD reaction yield enhancement strongly depend on the rate of deuterium diffusion in a thin subsurface layer of Ti cathode.



    However the sledgehammer kinetic bombardment may not be major factor in reactions which appear to occur at much lower

    energies than so far achieved in glow discharge. Its main significance is that the sledgehammer results show that the predictions of the conventionaltheories based on Coulombic forces are not adequate to explain actual results... which may indicate that more directional forces such as magnetic forces are involved.


  • I can assure you that the admins and mods of this forum are not being paid by 'Anti LENR associations or interest groups' and we work hard as a team to find a balance which information we allow here. And that is not easy, because we are in a very controversial field of science and have to deal within it as well with equally controversial innovations that beyond, if they are true, will have an extreme impact on all aspects of human life.


    For us as responsible persons here in the forum, it is therefore important to protect 'the core', so first of all to recognize obvious attacks from all possible sides and secondly to prevent them, but let pass valuable information, even if they are completely controversial and claim the opposite. This can lead to confusion and can not be prevented under the given forum rules, but we discuss every controversial post here in the forum and if this post complies with the basic rules we let it through, even if we may completely disagree with the content.


    Nobody can afford this alone, therefore such processes are always intensively discussed in the team and decided in the sense of the LENR research and technology.

  • I am also confused.


    Confused why Ascoli and Huxley cannot understand that to do boil off, you would have to know FIRST If the Palladium Cathode is LENR active or not.


    And to find which Palladium cathodes are LENR active, you would NOT just jump to boil off, but OF COURSE do more controlled calorimetry experiments.


    So, boil off is NOT used to prove LENR, but an EXTENSION of LENR at higher temperatures in wet Pd/D cells.


    That is what Fleischmann and P. did. First electrolysis at low temepratures identified the active palladium cathodes. Then they extended the experiments to other territories.


    And that is what google could do, but then they should use dusins of parallell Runs at low temps and ensures the loading is good, and the other identified requirements, like current density etc....


    Now then, when they find the Active ones, they could drive them to boil off and check If excess heat increase further, as hypothesized and claimed in experiment by F&P.

  • I am also confused.


    Confused why Ascoli and Huxley cannot understand that to do boil off, you would have to know FIRST If the Palladium Cathode is LENR active or not.


    That has been mentioned several times and i don't see the issue. if there is some skills and patience required to find the magic material, so be it. Ed Storms here says the google people talked to him, but he did not think they were able to do the right things.


    "Reproducible" means there is a definite and communicable procedure which, if followed, leads to the results. That procedure can include testing 100 cathodes to see which one is active, as long as the test regime is well defined.


    You do not need boil-off conditions to determine that an F&P cell exhibits excess heat, if it does, providing the calorimetry is up to the job.


    There are three possibilities:

    (1) a procedure that allows replication does not exist - the experiment is not reproducible

    (2) such a procedure does exist, but it has not been given to the google guys

    (3) it has been given to them, but they have decided not to follow it.


    Ed seemed to be thinking (1) or (3).


    My confusion is that (1), (2) and (3) are distinct, and it should be possible for us all to agree which is the case.


    I don't see this absolute certainty that a given experiment is reproducible in the community for any experiment other than D/Pd electrolysis. So, surely, to get a positive results, that one should be reproduced. Heads need banging together until it is agreed why that cannot, or can, happen.


    As a skeptic, of course, I think it very possible that D/Pd electrolysis does not generate nuclear levels of excess heat. I also think it very possible that determined and scientific investigation of what is going on in those cells, without any assumptions, will be interesting and reveal surprising electrochemistry. Finally, while I don't think it is so likely, reproduction of a genuine beyond chemical heat effect would be extraordinary and exciting. So we should do whatever can be done help this happen.


    Whomever talks to the google guys should maybe point out that although being too close to the LENR community would make it more difficult for their results to be accepted generally, not being open to advice from the LENR community would mean that their work will not be accepted by many here. Even I, if there is a known procedure that can reproduce F&P (no matter that it requires testing 100 cathodes), would not accept a google negative until they had best efforts followed such a procedure. OTOH, if there is no such procedure then Jed is wrong, those experiments are not replicable.


    THH


  • I basically agree with you. Let's Team Google ask its experts to prepare a certain number of F&P open cells in a water bath (1 is enough, but 3-4 are more spectacular), instrument them in a better way (including continuous monitoring of the water content) and let them carrying out whatever electrolytic test you like, with any type of cathode the LENR community suggests.


    At this point the choice is up to the TG managers and their experts. If they want to prolong for as long as possible this CF activity, they may decide to perform low current/low temperature experiments by testing as many cathodes they want for the decades to come.


    Otherwise, if and when the TG managers will decide that the time has come to resolve the CF cold case, they just have to ask their experts to increase the electrolytic current to about 0.5 A and, whatever the cathode, they will be certainly able to reproduce the "positive feedback" phenomenon, which F&P proposed as the cause of the cell boil-off and of the huge production of excess heat (*).


    When Google's experts will compare their energy balance of the boil-off phase - obtained by considering the true evaporation rate calculated on the bases of the water monitoring - with the calculation reported on page 16 of the most famous F&P paper (1), they will easily understand why "The magnitude of observed 'excess heat' led Fleischmann and Pons, and others, to speculate a nuclear mechanism", as they wrote on Nature (2), and will eventually be able to fulfill their engagement with the scientific community: "Our program sought to remedy that situation."


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

    (1) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1256-6

  • Trevithick is very uncomfortable speaking in terms of "prove" LENR, or anything for that matter. That is not what he and his team are attempting to do. Instead they intend to explore this science, and see where the results take them. Where that may lead them is anyone's guess, but already there have been some promising leads. In doing the basic research, their expectation is to expand beyond the parameters already established the past 30 years.


    Do they still want to replicate other experiments? Yes, but there are obstacles. The primary one, or deal killer, is having full cooperation of the author/s, all their internal documents...including initial planning session notes, etc. Trevithick is no stranger to the fickleness of the effect, so has no illusions as to the challenge he and the team face. He did his own research in the early 2000's, saw an AHE, but unfortunately was unable to reproduce it again. That is an experience he brought with him to Google.

  • This is good approach. If you start research with a clear goal you will reach it. This way Higgs boson and gravitational waves were proved. So say if you task your team with proving or disproving lenr they will certainly prove or disprove it.

  • Shane D. you said:


    In doing the basic research, their expectation is to expand beyond the parameters already established the past 30 years.


    if that's their real goal, he should be interested in people who, too, have seen that kind of thing too,

    I will advise to him to take into account old Kervran's work (a presentation of ICCF refers to it 70 years later !!).

    Again, the work from Japanese Oshawa, mentioned at next ICCF too but not taken into account by your LF/Google group.

    To end the big event mentioned by the French Didier Grass.

    He should also collaborate only with the 5 maximum,10 truly visionary and enough gifted people in the world.

    Last advice, to finish, he should be wary of those who sell their beautiful stark truth in their books.

    He should also be interested in models referring to dimensional anisotropy of space as referred to, I believe by Curbina

  • I can understands the confusion common when discussing LENR. It comes from having a basic belief or attitude toward the phenomenon through which all information is filtered. People are frequently unaware this is happening. I'm sure you all have had this happen in other subjects when the person to whom you are describing your ideas does not seem to catch on and keeps jumping to conclusions that have little relationship to what you said. In contrast, some people can see your point immediately. This does not mean such people agree, only that they can understand what you are saying. Most people respond in the former way when discussing LENR including the people at Google- they do not catch on. Consequently, a great deal of time and effort is required to have the basic ideas understood. Unfortunately, most people do not have the time and patience to fully understand, including the people at Google. Such people think they understand but in fact they do not.


    I see this process operate here in the response some people have to my comments. Some people understand immediately and others do not. Normally this failure does not matter unless the person is in charge of research. Ignorance in this role has important consequences. That is why I believe Google will fail even though their intentions are good. They simply do not understand what is required. Their intention of being an explorer without a map was only useful during the first few years of the LENR history. Now that approach is a waste of time. Now a very good map can be drawn based on thousands of pieces of information. But, to draw such a map, the information must be believed and placed in logical order. For example, THH could not draw such a map because he does not believe what has been observed has any relationship to LENR. The people at Google could not draw such a map because they do not believe LENR is a new kind of fusion. They believe it is a variation of hot fusion, i.e. a reaction that is consistent with the conventional understanding of the fusion process. Unfortunately, changing attitudes at this level is not possible. The people simply have to learn by experience. They need to go over the cliff that was clearly marked on the map but ignored. Other people who follow the map will avoid the cliff and find the gold. The future will reveal which is which.

  • This is good approach. If you start research with a clear goal you will reach it. This way Higgs boson and gravitational waves were proved. So say if you task your team with proving or disproving lenr they will certainly prove or disprove it.

    I think you are being sarcastic and if so I share your point of view.

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

  • The observed anisotropic emission of neutrons from cavitated stainless steel bar was a surprise to me. The interpretation that Cardone and team do about this observation (the Deformed Time Space theory) is debatable but the observation is still as puzzling.

  • Trevithick is very uncomfortable speaking in terms of "prove" LENR, or anything for that matter. That is not what he and his team are attempting to do.


    He is right: LENR can neither be proved nor disproved (by experiments). LENR can only be excluded theoretically, the way he and his team have already done on Nature (1) by reminding us that: "… nuclei at room temperature should not penetrate the Coulomb barrier. The probability of fusion drops exponentially as particle energy is reduced. Known fusion processes […] require […] temperature greater than 20 million kelvin".


    The CF controversy arises when it is stated that "disparities remain between predicted and observed fusion reaction rates at low particle energy". This is the "situation" that TG should try to "remedy", as they told the scientific community at the end of the same paragraph.


    If they really want to fulfill this commitment, they should find and explain the reasons for the aforementioned "disparities". The only chance they have to "remedy the situation", unless they are aimed at revolutionizing the whole nuclear physics, is to explain why the "fusion reaction rates at low particle energy" claimed by the CFers are not at all "observed" outcomes, but are, instead, "misinterpreted" phenomena.


    The main road to reach this goal is to start from the electrolytic cell of Fleischmann and Pons, that was mentioned in the previous paragraph of Nature's article. In particular, they should first replicate the "1992 boil-off experiment", not to prove (or disprove) LENR, but in order to reproduce the "positive feedback" phenomenon (actually a conventional and easily reproducible effect, noted by F&P since 1986), which F&P considered as the cause of the alleged excess heat they claimed at ICCF3.


    Quote

    That is not what he and his team are attempting to do. Instead they intend to explore this science, and see where the results take them. Where that may lead them is anyone's guess, but already there have been some promising leads. In doing the basic research, their expectation is to expand beyond the parameters already established the past 30 years.


    If they want to avoid wandering in nowhere lands for the next decades, they should first examine very carefully from where they predecessors started this journey 30 years ago.


    Quote

    Do they still want to replicate other experiments? Yes, but there are obstacles. The primary one, or deal killer, is having full cooperation of the author/s, all their internal documents...including initial planning session notes, etc.


    This is not a problem for the "1992 boil-off experiment". TG can find dozens of laboratories that are willing to supply Dewar cells capable of reproducing the "positive feedback" phenomenon.


    Quote

    Trevithick is no stranger to the fickleness of the effect, so has no illusions as to the challenge he and the team face. He did his own research in the early 2000's, saw an AHE, but unfortunately was unable to reproduce it again. That is an experience he brought with him to Google.


    If he will ask his team to reproduce the "1992 boil-off experiment", he will have the opportunity to understand how easy it is to "see" an effect that, if misinterpreted, creates the illusion to have stumbled upon a historical discovery and he will realize why he didn't reproduce it anymore.


    (1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1256-6