Coming in from the cold
23 October 2019 - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0530-1
Google (UBC/MIT/LBNL) post Nature updates.
-
Sounds like a way to justify ongoing research on the grounds that it may not get excess heat but is still useful.
-
Is it fair to say that this is a significant softening of Nature's stance?
-
It look like it.
-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0530-1
Why don't we read and discuss?
-
I discussed this with a colleague today. We decided it suits the old English expression - 'Damned with faint praise.' - meaning it is so weak on the positives it might be construed as negative. And it is only a weak counterbalance to the very hostile editorial pieces that they published along with the first Google paper and also promoted.
However, perhaps a crust is better than no bread.
-
Ahlfors has dug up information indicating the Google Team has begun the follow-up up on their initial research: Nature: Google funded research fails to find excess heat/nuclear signature. Reaches out to LENR community for advice!
We may have to start a new, dedicated thread like our Russia/Japan/Italy specific threads to keep track of their efforts. Possibly rename this thread for that purpose, if that will not bother you Sergei?
-
This article is dreadful. Abominable. 最低 (the pits)。
-
Ahlfors has dug up information indicating the Google Team has begun the follow-up up on their initial research: " data-translation="[пользователь='2391']Ahlfors [/user] откопал информацию, указывающую на то, что команда Google начала следить за своими первоначальными исследованиями: " data-type="trSpan">[пользователь='2391']Ahlfors [/user] откопал информацию, указывающую на то, что команда Google начала следить за своими первоначальными исследованиями: природа: финансируемые Google исследования не могут найти избыточную тепловую/ядерную сигнатуру. Обращается к сообществу LENR за советом!
Нам, возможно, придется начать новую, специальную нить, как наши Россия/Япония/Италия конкретные темы, чтобы отслеживать их усилия. Возможно переименовать этот поток с этой целью, если это не будет беспокоить Вас Сергей?
OK.
-
The crux of the matter -
The amount of fusion seen so far is minuscule, and nowhere near the level needed to be of practical value in energy generation. All the same, it exceeds theoretical predictions by two orders of magnitude, for reasons not yet understood.
Because of hydrino/ultra dense hydrogen formation! They'd know this if they read Holmlid's or Mills' papers - electron-screening models are just another SM fudge.
-
Let's assume some editors are intelligent and understand that LENR may be real, is probably.
They are also intelligent socially and understand they will be toasted when it becomes public and it is shown they were so negative.
They also understand they will be immediately toasted if they say LENR may be real.
So they do damage control that preparing a plausible deniability of LENR denial when it will be recognized, that they can plausibly deny as supportive to LENR today.
Just a good point, it may mean that they accept LENR as acceptable, but why now ?
It means maybe there is new risk of being toasted by LENR becoming accepted.
Is there new data ?
Or is this just new editor ?
What is new.
NB: I don't believe such people can change opinion... they change strategy, not opinion.
-
What is new - well Holmlid's recent work is new and if you extrapolate his findings to other LENR work - you can end up with muon-catalysed fusion being an academically acceptable mechanism. Nature, or mainstream science, don't accept his, or Mills' or Santilli's work or ideas. Maybe, after all, we should suggest Team Google should investigate and verify this. Along with NASA's recent studies maybe.
-
Muons are not catalysts for nuclear fusion. This is a separate class of nuclear reactions.
-
??? Really? Read
Existing Source for Muon-Catalyzed Nuclear Fusion Can Give ...
https://www.tandfonline.com › doi › fullby L Holmlid - 2019
-
Muons are not catalysts for nuclear fusion. This is a separate class of nuclear reactions.
Muons are known to be catalysts for fusion. pretty obviously, because they bind with nuclei to form muonic atoms 100s of times smaller than normal atoms. The increased negative charge density makes for enormously high shielding and therefore fusion is much easier.
There is clear theory, and masses of corroborating evidence. People have looked for a long time for efficient muon generators because that would mean cheap fusion.
If Holmlid has a high efficiency muon generator then certainly he can have cheap fusion. The question is whether he has that. I don't think so. But we will see.
-
??? Really? Read
Existing Source for Muon-Catalyzed Nuclear Fusion Can Give ...
https://www.tandfonline.com › doi › fullby L Holmlid - 2019
When you have two protons or two deuterons at less than 1 picometer, as Holmlid claims for UDH and UDD, then fusion can happen spontaneously. In other words there are two types of fusion possible with UDH and UDD.
-
The question is whether he has that. I don't think so.
I'm also still skeptical about this - trouble is its very hard to discount H's work - it all looks so well characterized re meson lifetimes etc - the stumbling block is the lack of interest/verification from other mainstream physicists - and the question arises if these are not muons - what is the alternative explanation for his observations? Electron clusters?
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.
CLICK HERE to contact us.