Google (UBC/MIT/LBNL) post Nature updates.

  • As far as I can tell, they did not follow the directions for the classical cold fusion experiments. (I may be wrong, but that is my impression.) If you don't follow directions, nothing will work. It makes no difference what experiment you do.


    Have they attempted the bulk Pd/D experiment? I was under the impression that they haven't, and that they've only been studying the loading of palladium.

  • I listened to the interview again and, assuming I didn't miss anything, nowhere in that interview does Yet-Ming Chiang say that LENR is not real. Nor does he say it was never replicated. The interviewer says, in the introduction, that it was not replicated, and that most people regard it as not real.

    Right. It was the interviewer who said that. Chiang did not contradict him.



    Yet-Ming Chiang does say '[...] a number of people have attempted to replicate that experiment [F&P] since, and to our knowledge, there is not an example where when all of the potential errors are accounted for, corrections are made, that there's a clear verification of an anomalous result.'

    Yes, and that is a lie. There are dozens of experiments that fit that description. No one has found any significant potential errors in any of the major experiments. Chiang has not found any errors. There are no papers in the literature describing any errors, except the imaginary errors described by Morrison and Shanahan.

  • Right. It was the interviewer who said that. Chiang did not contradict him.


    There's a significant difference in quality between the introduction, which was clearly recorded in a studio, and the interview, which was clearly recorded in the field on a hand held device. It's often the case that the introductions to podcast interviews are recorded separately, either before or after. I doubt Chiang had any opportunity to vet it, let alone offer a rebuttal.


    JedRothwell wrote:

    Yes, and that is a lie. There are dozens of experiments that fit that description. No one has found any significant potential errors in any of the major experiments. Chiang has not found any errors. There are no papers in the literature describing any errors, except the imaginary errors described by Morrison and Shanahan.


    Lie is a strong word. I read Chiang's comment as being confined to a comment on calorimetry. If Chiang is not satisfied with the calorimetry in those papers, then that's his prerogative. It is not necessary for him to find and publish errors before he is allowed to form a judgement, be circumspect about a body of work or express an opinion. What potential errors he has in mind I do not know. I do take your point that none have been proposed. It's possible that he's in error. That wouldn't make him a liar.

  • Lie is a strong word. I read Chiang's comment as being confined to a comment on calorimetry. If Chiang is not satisfied with the calorimetry in those papers, then that's his prerogative.

    I do not think that is how science works. You cannot just say, "I don't believe this result." You have to give a technical reason. If Chiang knows of a problem with the calorimetry in papers by Fleischmann, Storms, McKubre or Miles, he should say what that problem is. Better yet, he should publish a peer-reviewed paper describing the error, so that we can judge whether he is right. If he cannot give a specific, falsifiable, technical reason for his assertion, the assertion is invalid.


    I am confident he cannot give any reason. No one has come with any reason to doubt any of the authors I listed, or ~100 others. After 30 years, if any of the so-called skeptics had a reason, they would have given it by now. I think the statute of limitations has run out. You cannot let a scientific debate go on year after year where one side presents hundreds of irrefutable experimental results grounded in thermodynamics and other 18th and 19th century laws of physics, while the other side says only "I don't think so." That's not a debate.

  • It's often the case that the introductions to podcast interviews are recorded separately, either before or after. I doubt Chiang had any opportunity to vet it, let alone offer a rebuttal.

    That does not let him off the hook. If he knows the facts, he should have demanded the intro be corrected and recorded again. Imagine someone interviews me about the author Natsume Soseki. The intro says he studied in the U.S. and he died in 1961. (He studied in England and died in 1916.) If I heard that, I would demand they correct it. I would be remiss not to.

  • "If Chiang is not satisfied with the calorimetry in those papers, then that's his prerogative."


    You cannot just say, "I don't believe this result." You have to give a technical reason.

    It is not his prerogative to ignore the laws of physics or to rewrite the textbooks on calorimetry. Science is not based on prerogatives or opinions. Chiang must justify his assertion with rigor. He must be as rigorous and attentive to facts and laws as any cold fusion researcher who claims excess heat. He does not get a free pass for a negative opinion, or for sharing an opinion that many ignorant scientists happen to hold. There are no privileged arguments in science.

  • There are dozens of experiments that fit that description. No one has found any significant potential errors in any of the major experiments. Chiang has not found any errors. There are no papers in the literature describing any errors, except the imaginary errors described by Morrison and Shanahan.

    If Chiang knows of a problem with the calorimetry in papers by Fleischmann, Storms, McKubre or Miles, he should say what that problem is. Better yet, he should publish a peer-reviewed paper describing the error, so that we can judge whether he is right. If he cannot give a specific, falsifiable, technical reason for his assertion, the assertion is invalid.


    I am confident he cannot give any reason. No one has come with any reason to doubt any of the authors I listed, or ~100 others. After 30 years, if any of the so-called skeptics had a reason, they would have given it by now. I think the statute of limitations has run out. You cannot let a scientific debate go on year after year where one side presents hundreds of irrefutable experimental results grounded in thermodynamics and other 18th and 19th century laws of physics, while the other side says only "I don't think so." That's not a debate.


    As extensively explained in this forum (*), the major article of F&P reporting the astounding calorimetric results of their "1992 boil-off experiment" was full of errors and the conclusions were completely wrong, despite the fact that it was published on PLA (1), a peer-reviewed and well renowned scientific journal.


    If Google people really want to solve the CF cold case, they should just ask their experts to replicate that old and fundamental experiment and submit an article to Nature, explaining how F&P erroneously calculated a huge, but completely imaginary, excess heat.


    (*) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

    (1) https://www.sciencedirect.com/…icle/pii/037596019390327V

  • At any case, it's interesting and thorough electrochemical study - but it still cannot be counted as a seriously minded attempt for replication of Fleischman-Pons experiments, which consistently used bulky samples.

    Dimeter Alexandrov has used thin film specimens to demonstrate LENR and He4,He3 production


    http://canadiancor.com/proposa…pment-of-an-lenr-reactor/


    These thin samples may be more akin to Berlinguette thin film expertise..


    Also the differential scanning calorimetry..is accurate


    Alexandrov in Ontario... Berlinguette in BC..maybe its too far..

  • Quote

    Were you born yesterday?

    I wish! Whatever it was that happened in the 1990's, it has little do with what is happening in 2019. And the truth is that P&F were well funded by several governments before and after the mid '90's. In my view, the problem is failure to perform, not failure to believe. Let's hope that Mizuno puts an end to that. If he clearly does and still does not get main line support, then you have a reason to gripe but that couldn't realistically happen because of entrepreneurs and the internet.


    Quote

    The laws of thermodynamics still work, so cold fusion is still real.

    Perhaps you skipped a step or two? It's like saying Coulomb's Law still works therefore LENR is completely impossible-- equally stupid IMO.

  • It's like saying Coulomb's Law still works therefore LENR is completely impossible-- equally stupid IMO.

    That's not stupid. It is incorrect. Coulomb's law still works, so whatever theory explains cold fusion must take that into account. It has to be something similar to muon catalyzed fusion, which circumvents the barrier. You cannot dismiss the laws of thermodynamics or Coulomb's law. People who claim there are errors in the calorimetry dismiss thermodynamics.


    That is not to say you have to explain how the barrier is circumvented now, at this stage, before the experimental results can be accepted. It works the other way around. Replicated, high sigma results are true by definition. There is no other standard of truth in science. Something has to explain them, but at present it is not known. That doesn't mean the results are wrong. It just means no one understands them yet. The "explanations" they are wrong because calorimetry does not work, or because there is hidden error, or because it is the prerogative of any scientist to reject a result on a whim without a reason -- explain nothing.

  • Have Chiang or Berlinguette ever examined the recent palladium deuterium calorimetry replication results by

    Dr Michael Staker..??


    or found significant errors?

    https://www.google.com/url?cli…Vaw0YbMfOEWxA1swTPd3pX_xA


    TG must have been aware of Staker, as he was mentioned more than a few times as a candidate on the: Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"


    Anything on that thread is well known within the TG group, as they digested, and parsed every word said in it. Does that mean they "examined Stakers calorimetry results"...I do not know. Probably not. He (Staker) has been around LENR for a long time, but his seminal piece you refer to, that earned him a high ranking in last years "LF Best of Science" poll, came a few years after LENR started planning LENR replications.

  • Quote

    They were never funded by any government. They were funded by Toyota.


    True. Sorry about that. But the point was that they were funded:


    Quote

    In 1992, Pons and Fleischman resumed research with Toyota Motor Corporation's IMRA lab in France.[71] Fleischmann left for England in 1995, and the contract with Pons was not renewed in 1998 after spending $40 million with no tangible results.[73] The IMRA laboratory stopped cold fusion research in 1998 after spending £12 million.[3] Pons has made no public declarations since, and only Fleischmann continued giving talks and publishing papers.[73]


    Mostly in the 1990s, several books were published that were critical of cold fusion research methods and the conduct of cold fusion researchers.[74] Over the years, several books have appeared that defended them.[75] Around 1998, the University of Utah had already dropped its research after spending over $1 million, and in the summer of 1997, Japan cut off research and closed its own lab after spending $20 million.[76]


    From Jed's favorite reference work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion


    I am sure he will say all the above funding was discontinued due to pure malevolence and evil and had nothing to do with the nature of its results.

  • I am sure he will say all the above funding was discontinued due to pure malevolence and evil and had nothing to do with the nature of its results.

    Martin told me it was discontinued because Toyota got into a dispute with Johnson Matthey. See p. 5:


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


    I have no direct knowledge of this, and no source other than Martin, but I am sure that is what he said because I have an audio recording of him saying it.


    I would say that is stupidity rather than malevolence. In line with Hanlon's razor:


    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

  • Does that mean they "examined Stakers calorimetry results"...I do not know. Probably not.

    If they did not examine this, they are remiss. If they had asked me, I would have told them to spend at least a week or two working with Staker in the lab, hands on. He is one of the best people in the field, and he always has been.


    I am sure I would have recommended this, because -- come to think of it -- another group contacted me at about that time, and asked me who I recommend. I included Staker. The people from Google never contacted me. I don't feel left out, because they didn't contact Miles, Staker and several others. They consulted with McKubre and Storms. I don't know who else they may have talked with. At ICCF22 they told me they disagreed with Storms.

  • Martin told me it was discontinued because Toyota got into a dispute with Johnson Matthey.

    It may seem unbelievable that a large, well-run company would abandon a promising technology for such a trivial reason. But the history of business is full of similar examples. Western Union passed up the opportunity to buy the rights to the telephone for $100,000. Xerox PARC invented most of the computer interfaces later used by Apple and in Windows, but Xerox did nothing with it. Nearly all of the mainframe and minicomputer companies stood by and did nothing when microcomputers emerged, so within a decade they all went out of business.


    Since the 1970s, Japanese and later Chinese companies have taken over market after market in shipbuilding, steel, semiconductors, televisions, high tech automobile components and much else, while U.S. companies and governments stood by and did nothing. It has been like taking candy from a baby. This is inexplicable to me, and to the Japanese businessmen and engineers I know.


    Henry Ford once said to Charles Kettering, "I have decided not to put self-starters in my cars." Kettering said, "It isn't your decision. You will install them whether you want to or not." He understood this was a technological imperative. But, in a sense Ford did have a choice. Ford could choose not to sell cars with self-starters, but by doing so, he would be choosing to put himself out of business. You can always destroy yourself in business. Most companies that fail do not succumb to competition; they succumb to problems they make for themselves: hubris, stupidity, inertia, fear of the future, and so on.


    I quoted Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." In my experience, most of the opposition to cold fusion is from stupidity, not malice. For example, many of the opponents -- including a surprising number of professional scientists -- do not understand the difference between power and energy. See p. 6 and 7:


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


    Others do not understand why it is significant that cell that has no chemical fuel and could not produce heat for even a few seconds at 100 W continues for 90 days at that power level. Still others do not understand the difference between input power and noise. Such people will never understand why it is certain that cold fusion is real. No amount of proof can convince them of anything. Even when they know (or think they know) textbook physics, they do not understand anything. As Kettering said: "There is a great difference between knowing and understanding: you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."

  • Martin told me it was discontinued because Toyota got into a dispute with Johnson Matthey.


    This is a much more convincing explanation for the F&P fiascos:

    From http://www.infinite-energy.com…/pdfs/JapaneseProgram.pdf


    The Yomiuri quoted the NHE program manager:

    In the Pons replication experiment, we saw excess heat and by the same token we saw examples of a heat deficit, where the energy appeared to vanish,” explained program manager Naoto Asami, looking back over the work. “We found problems with their calorimeter, and we feel that their entire data set is weak and questionable."

    […]

    In the case of boiling cells, we were able to verify that the electrolyte is entrained in the vapor column by measuring the pH of the condensate. Whenever excess heat was calculated, it was always due to overestimating the vapor mass transport. This is not to say that P&F did not have valid results. It may be that their equipment generates nuclear excess heat in France and false positives in Japan. All we can say is that our results, using their equipment, was susceptible to false positives, and for that reason we are not convinced by the data set which now exists….

    Anyway, for these reasons I believe that excess heat is at best elusive, and I'm no longer convinced that it exists at all. […]"


    [added emphasis]

  • I

    The people from Google never contacted me. I don't feel left out, because they didn't contact Miles, Staker and several others.

    Ming Chiang from TG mentioned how interesting the phases structure of Pd H2 are..


    also that the tetrahedral sites for hydrogen/deuterium give a much higher Pd:H2 ratio or Pd:D2.

    I am sure he would find the novel delta and delta' phases interesting.

    PdH2 is the subject of significant research activity


    I am sure that there should be no barrier to contacting Staker and other's .. now that

    the cold fusion ice barrier appears to be melting

    Staker has no problem with communication..


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ion_and_Superconductivity


    The production of excess heat from a nuclear source during electrolysis in heavy water indicates portions of the

    Palladium (Pd) – deuterium (D) specimen are in the δ phase,

    while a drop in resistance of the Pd during excess heat, indicates portions of the specimen have shifted to δ′ phase.

    This research also suggests that δ is the nuclear active environment (NAE) for LENR

    while δ′ is a superconducting state (phase), and thus epiphanates7 a link between SAV, LENR and superconductivity.