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

  • The claimed success rate for LENR experiments is so low, that it is indistinguishable from the probability of committing a major error . . .


    Claimed by who? You? Where did you get that number?


    The claimed success rate for tritium by Will et al. was 4 out of 4 active tests, 0 out of 4 control tests, and 0 out of 150 unused samples. The chances of flipping a coin to get 4 head followed by 4 tails is 1 in 256. Do you want to bet on that?


    As shown by the ENEA and McKubre, success is correlated with measured physical charactoristics. It is not random. It is no coincidence.


    Miles reported: "For our 33 experiments involving heat and helium measurements, excess heat was measured in 21 cases and excess helium was observed in 18 studies. Thus 12 experiments yielded no excess heat and 15 measurements gave no excess helium." The probability that was a coincidence is 1 in 750,000. Do you want to bet on that??


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf

  • Dear Matt Trevithick,


    I take advantage of the announced end of this thread by @ShaneD aka Stephane Daigle, to make a conclusion a little deeper on my vision of things.

    You, Google, are involved in a significant research Lenr program, without prejudice.

    In order to start in the field, I understand that you have linked with current old teams and have followed their recommendations heard their respective background, for this first step.

    In conclusion, I understand that you have already discovered "some anomalies", which seems encouraging to continue, maybe differently.

    For this, you must surely think that you lack a theoretical basis more consistent to increase your chances for future progress.

    Regarding the available theories, you know, everyone has his own, often relayed by a certain ego, rather than constructive pragmatism.

    With hindsight now available in the field, one can understand that Lenr's theory should be different from the basis of the physical science known to date.

    Also, to continue sterilely by advices of those who have failed, is certainly not the right way to follow.

    I'm talking about the current electrolysis Pd/D. Their fault isn't having tried to improve excellent work from P&F founding fathers but especially to have lacked daring, imagination, creativity for improvement of this line of research.

    For example if a crack width would determine or not a Lenr reaction, why not have tested samples compressed or stretched during experiment ? I had also suggested this kind of experiment to a French researcher with Pd sample switched by martensitic steel also permeable to hydrogen at low temperatures.


    Fortunately, since then, other paths have emerged, thanks again to Stephane Daigle’s initiative, our small team of experienced experimenters, have done a consensual work to try to answer to your request.

    Work well documented by Alan Goldwater file.

    The following ways are :


    The work of Holmlid,

    The R20,

    Japanese powder, not Colombian, it also heats, but doesn't have the same effects. 😊


    As I said, Our Excel report was a consensual group work, for my part, I would have liked to add also other experiences very relevant, in my eyes, some of which, moreover, some work will be taken again at the next ICCF, about Ohsawa or Kervran, for example.

    I would also like to add the excellent papers shared by Alan Smith concerning the work of the late Polish chemist Groszek (COP 12 !) And a plasma experiment by L. Rayleigh dating back to 1946 with the help of a metal catalyst, again impressive results ( 223 eV/mol), we are getting closer and closer to the famous QX.


    These works were neglected because their scope wasn't identified by our group, too bad.

    Also, I allow myself to go back to my own research concerning Rossi's technologies.

    Since 10 years that I study Lenr field, I tried to have no preconceived idea, tell me that everything is possible.

    This ungrateful ant work led me to certain technical certainties.

    Generally speaking, we shouldn't mix the so-called classical nuclear energy initiated by kinetic energy and Lenr field, which will require again a deep update for current physics.

    I understand that this was your goal to better understand theory behind Lenr field, I don't think it's the right way.

    It's still not completely sure that "Cooper pairs" model would well explain superconductivity behavior, however industrial applications are already numerous in this area.

    I think we have to work with these technical keys from this synthesis work to improve the Lenr process.


    What are they ? I think there is a consensus that electrons have a key role in nuclei fusion even though they remain too far apart from each other to fuse.

    It turns out that if you load, across electronic layers of 2 close cores , by a large flow of another free electrons, it fuses, hence results of many experiments with electric discharges.

    In this sense, the characterization of this pseudo-quantum vacuum space between electronic layers remains still poorly understood.

    A small comment on your recent patent : you have tried to increase "hot fusion"rate by surfaces, composite particles but it remains again hot fusion however your idea of taking again surface plasmons way remains excellent, Rossi had already used it for his reactors too.

    I will present a poster explaining how Ecat HT actually works at the next ICCF to discuss around.

    To return to these 3 areas of work identified by our Lenr Forum working group:


    In 1 the Japanese powders: I think you will meet all their teams at the next ICCF to get an full idea.

    On the French side, my Renault / Nissan friend gave PZT powders at Biberian, he obtained, like other teams, a COP 2.

    I always have access to these powders so it could be, for you, a first quick way to answer to one of the 3 requested experiments.


    In 2, there was a big consensus from our group around Holmlid's work, but personally I really find similarities between this and Ecat HT or recent N. Chauvin patent, for example.


    Regarding Mizuno's R20, first replicators realize that it isn't so easy as announced by J. Rothwell.

    Besides, it reminds me too high exaltation from glorious epoch of Piantelli, or Parkhomov replication time.

    Many more parameters are to be taken into account than initially, too, it takes a sacred technical base to sort all that.

    The role played by the IRs remains poorly understood by the community, too many generalities are heard, rather than to try a deep understanding.

    R20, like other ways, are those of thin films, to me, you still have to work on these questions in order to answer your question 3.


    Small bonus, question 4, not asked, is the plasma way that remains the future, undoubtedly.

    Rossi remains the leader despite his much-maligned QX.

    QX principle remains the same as Ecat HT, it also uses a metal catalyst, like L. Rayleigh in 1946, to create an overabundance of electrons/protons.

    This fact, not understood by the Old Guard, justifies all of reproducibility problems about P&F type experiments.


    To return to question 4 and plasma Lenr way, it must be understood that this will be the future of aircraft engines and space rockets, because lightweight devices and consuming little.


    At the same time, it will be necessary to stabilize superconductivity at high temperatures.

    Today, it's already almost done by ternary alloys but they are only working in static, ideal way should be to build a structured alloy, atom by atom, unfortunately current metallurgy doesn't yet know how to do it.

    HT superconductivity principle could be easily explained by spin current removal, it could be done dynamically.

    Mastering this technology will, and few know, greatly increase electric thermo converters efficiency.


    Also, it will be the ideal complement for future Lenr heat generator.

    This won't necessarily be useful for planes or cars but crucial for space rockets, because you should use ionic propulsion MHD.

    Space problem remains the embedded fuel mass, too important, you understand now the relevance of these technologies not so far, believe me.

    Moreover, on President Trump's impulse, NASA is forced to accelerate its development but must stand out of NERVA old concept style for nuclear propulsion.

    Of course the specific impulse is doubled for this old reactor, but the liquid hydrogen embedded mass remains enormous, it is already obsolete !


    To conclude, thank you for letting us have the opportunity to listen, perhaps it will be extended before a good glass of wine in Italy.


    Ps: user of your applications, please, play your influence to improve Google Maps, in fact, the contrast between roads and the surrounding ground is still insufficient, the basic green is too bland and we can't change the color.

    Finally, at age 51, I don't see so well that before, when you zoom on Google Maps, it would be necessary that cities names could be also zoomed, just only a few seconds, in order to see where we are really, even without glasses, when you ride under a red sun, it isn't easy, believe me 😊


    David FOJT

    Independent researcher

  • Regarding Mizuno's R20, firstreplicators realize that it isn't so easy as announced by J. Rothwell.


    I take exception to that. I never said it was easy. That's absurd. Anyone can see from the ICCF21 paper, Fig. 13, that it often failed, and it is difficult. In the ICCF22 reprint, we said we hope that people skilled in the art can replicate. That means people who have done similar experiments for many years. It doesn't mean "easy." We concluded:


    "As far as we know, this experiment has the best reproducibility and control, and the highest power output of any cold fusion experiment on record. The output to input ratio is also one of the best on record."


    That also does not mean "easy" in any sense. That is like saying XYZ Hospital has the best survival rate in a complicated form of heart surgery. It means better than other hospitals. It does not mean that any fool can walk in the door and perform open heart surgery.

  • Claimed by who? You?


    No, by you! And in many occasions. For example, here (1): "It is not simple, not cheap, and very difficult to replicate". Or here (2): "It isn't simple. From 1989 to last month, no cold fusion experiment had a high chance of success. They all took lots of expertise, months or years of effort, and a large dose of good luck. During this time, if we had known of an experiment with a high chance of success, we would have replicated it ourselves. We wouldn't have been sitting around waiting for Google." (emphasis added, here and below)


    Not only by you. This is what Miles wrote to Fleischmann in August 1998 (3):

    "On another subject, the SRI calorimetry was used extensively at NHE, but no excess heat was ever measured. I even ran two experiments using this calorimetry, using materials that were usually successful, but there was no excess heat produced. I have been reading Mike McKubre’s NHE report. He states that over the past several years there have been zero excess heat results despite performing 88 experiments at NHE and SRI. This is certainly frustrating and contributed greatly to the decision to end the program at NHE. In my opinion, this flow calorimetry is too static since the temperature remains constant. Therefore, there is no positive feedback effect."


    Well, after 21 years from the letter above, it's would be very interesting from a scientific POV to solve this mystery: why these very well equipped laboratories failed to obtain the same sensational excess heat claimed by F&P in their "1992 boil-off experiment"?


    Not for sure for not having reproduced the "positive feedback". It's not at all difficult to trigger this phenomenon in a F&P electrolytic cell and lead the water to boil-off completely in a relatively short time.


    If they really want to solve the CF case, Google's managers should ask their scientific partners to replicate the same experiment and reproduce the same phenomenon. The Google experts will be able to easily find the answer to the above question and will have the opportunity to submit another article to Nature editors, this time under the title "The solution of CF cold case".


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

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

    (3) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf

  • this time under the title "The solution of CF cold case".

    Cold case implies an unsolved crime

    "an unsolved criminal investigation which remains open pending the discovery of new evidence."

    Ascoli misrepresentation again.

    and a myopic boiloff preoccupation

    This selfstyled CF sleuth has foam-coloured spectacles..

    ignoring 30 years of hundreds of research articles by thousands of scientists


    How many more misleading cold case posts can Ascoli squeeze in before Friday?


    Rather than Ascolian cherrypicks it is more truthful to read Melvin Miles..words and documents in toto

    "

    The author had the opportunity once again to work on cold fusion in 1997-1998 at the New Hydrogen

    Energy laboratory in Sapporo, Japan. Three F-P Dewar calorimeters were available for this work,
    and a new Pd-B cathode from NRL was included in these experiments.

    Significant excess power for Pd-B was again observed [2].

    The computer data from this experiment was also later carefully processed by
    Martin Fleischmann and published in a detailed NRL report [3]. The excess power was verified throughout

    most of this experiment and increased to nearly 10 watts during the boil-off of the cell contents. A
    significant new observation for this Pd-B cathode was the very early appearance of the excess power effect

    within the first two days of this experiment [3].

    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMexcesspowe.pdf

    This work is continuing in 2019

    "

    Phase I of the LEAP has been funded recently by the Anthropocene Institute. It seeks to demonstrate an experiment that reproducibly produces LENR energy with good signal-to-noise ratios. A key feature of the program is to exploit specific Pd-B alloys that have been shown to produce excess heat in multiple experiments with a high success rate. We have such materials, which were made over 20 years ago by one of us (MAI) at the Naval Research Laboratory [1]. Cathodes produced from those materials gave excess heat in nine of ten experiments with four different calorimeters in three laboratories in experiments by one of us (MHM) [2]. New Pd-B alloys have also been procured and characterized.

    A simple, transparent isoperibolic calorimeter has been designed, built and tested. LabVIEW is being used for control of experiments, and for data acquisition, analysis and display. A Keysight E36313A power supply, which has three sources in one unit, provides electrolysis power. A Pico PT-104 unit, with four temperature sensors capable of milli-degree resolution, is being used. Two calorimeters can be run simultaneously in the same water bath.

    This paper will provide the experimental and analytical results available at the time of the ICCF-22."

  • Cold case implies an unsolved crime

    "an unsolved criminal investigation which remains open pending the discovery of new evidence."

    Ascoli misrepresentation again.


    Ask the authors of the article on Nature (1), who chose the title: Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion.


    Anyway it's clear to me, that they intended to mean "an unsolved scientific investigation which remains open pending the discovery of new evidence." I think this is what was understood by everyone who read that article. Therefore Google LLC, which fund the research and to whom belong 3 out of 7 authors of the article, is now committed with the scientific community to solve this scientific cold case.


    Quote

    This work is continuing in 2019

    "Phase I of the LEAP has been funded recently by the Anthropocene Institute. It seeks to demonstrate an experiment that reproducibly produces LENR energy with good signal-to-noise ratios. …


    No wonder. CF(LENR) is a cold case, therefore, unless Google managers will decide to solve it, it will continue even until 2050 and beyond, for as long as will exist public or private institutions willing to fund it.


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

  • In 1 the Japanese powders: I think you will meet all their teams at the next ICCF to get an full idea.

    On the French side, my Renault /Nissan friend gave PZT powders at Biberian, he obtained, like other teams, a COP 2.

    I always have access to these powders so it could be, for you, a first quick way to answer to one of the 3requested experiments.


    Great post Cydonia . Very informative and covers areas I have not seen covered yet. This quote of yours though, most sticks out to me. Very generous of you to offer to provide TG some of this Japanese powder I have heard whispered about before. I would like to note -again, that Biberian was also kind enough to offer TG a sample of his FP's electrode.


  • This thread began with a challenge by Matt Trevithick (Google Research Program Manager) to answer 2 questions:

    1. "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"
    2. "What would convince you that the experiment has been run well, such that you will accept the results... whatever they might be?"

    With the condition that our recommendations: "Be well formulated so that they are actionable". These were the same questions Matt asked the audience at ICCF18 in 2013.


    Matt and his colleagues spun up an effort in 2015 to independently evaluate LENR, which resulted in this Nature Perspective that was published on May 27, 2019.


    The Nature Perspective reported a null result: "So far, we have found no evidence of anomalous effects claimed by proponents of cold fusion that cannot otherwise be explained prosaically."


    However, this was qualified with: “This result leaves open the possibility that the debunking of cold fusion in 1989 was perhaps premature because the relevant physical and material conditions had not (and indeed have not yet) been credibly realized and thoroughly investigated. Should the phenomenon happen to be real (itself an open question), there may be good technical reasons why proponents of cold fusion have struggled to detect anomalous effects reliably and reproducibly. Continued scepticism of cold fusion is justified, but we contend that additional investigation of the relevant conditions is required before the phenomenon can be ruled out entirely."

    It also struck an optimistic tone: "We have also learned that studying cold fusion can impact other areas of science and technology. For example, the absorption of hydrogen into palladium is an active area for exploring how metal–solute interactions affect properties relevant to energy storage, catalysis and sensing. We believe that there is exciting new science to be done within the parameter space of cold fusion experiments, and that this is an area worthy of engagement from the broader scientific community, even if the discovery of cold fusion at high enough rates for energy applications does not materialize."

    TG made an argument for further research, and they are now planning for it. I connected with Matt, and he invited our opinion. On July 12, 2019, the LENR community by way of LENR Forum, started this thread to help the cause.

    The original question posed to us (What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?), soon morphed into a more general question (What 3 experiments will most likely help TG validate LENR?). Since IMO, this “revised” question was in the spirit of the original, a consensus on one could be construed to be a consensus on the other, so the debate continued on without interruption. I mention this only because TG’s goal is much more expansive, and does not deserve to be so narrowly defined as *validating* anything, much less LENR.

    Soon after the thread opened, it became apparent that no matter how the question was worded, we would be unable to form a consensus via the main forum. Thus began a private effort on my part to manage the process, by assembling a small team under “Conversations”. Unfortunately, this small team encountered the same frustrations as the main forum, and within a few weeks, our committee was disbanded.

    Now, 7 weeks later and after more than 900 replies and 38k views, it is apparent to me the LENR Forum was unable to provide a satisfactory answer to Matt’s questions. Some will dispute this (some already have) and feel there was a rough conclusion, with some experiments mentioned more than others. I will leave that up to Matt and his team to decide. But, from my perspective, a clear consensus did not emerge, so we will leave it as is...inconclusive.

    However, IMO we did accomplish some good, so this was not an exercise in futility. The general discussion of many experiments, their pros and cons, was useful. We certainly provided TG food for thought.


    Also, from my vantage point, I think the debate exposed a weakness within the community that needs to be addressed. Many times we have heard it said that LENR is “proven”, as evidenced by the many “replicable experiments”. However, when those experiments were held up to closer examination, there were always caveats; too many to justify the claim that LENR is a proven science. I think there needs to be some clarification as to what “replicable" and "proven” mean, when applied to LENR.


    Last but not least; this was fun. That always makes it worthwhile. We are here to talk after all, and that is just what we did. And you never know what good comes from discussions like this until the last chapter is written, and Google has not written it yet.


    Thanks go to all members who provided their informed opinions, those researchers in the field who contributed “by proxy”, our resident skeptics, and my “TG committee”.

    In particular, I would like to thank Matt Trevithick and his team for giving us this great opportunity. This has indeed been a unique “experiment”, unlike any other in LENR history.


    Good luck TG…the planet is counting on you!