So, It seems team google never really ceased to exist, was just looking for more funding. This is interesting. I wonder if they had submitted a proposal to the Arpa-e FOA.
At the ICCF24 Panel Discussion, Trevithick said most of the team stayed involved. That tells us something about what they saw, but did not include in their Nature Paper.
A recent video from Berlinguette's lab.
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
A recent video from Berlinguette's lab.
Electrochemically hydrogen loaded target, from where that crazy idea could come from? 😉
https:// m.youtube.com/watch?v=VzApRZYKGyY
Nice set-up the Berlinguette Group has. Like the name of the reactor also: "Thunderbird". As mentioned above, at ICCF24 Trevithick said most of the old Team Google are still working on LENR. This new video, and Schenkel's heading up the 2 ARPA-E Teams (LLBL/Univ of Cal-Davis) proves it.
Makes you wonder what they saw during their 4 year TG (Project Charleston), they did not put in their Nature paper?
Nice set-up the Berlinguette Group has. Like the name of the reactor also: "Thunderbird". As mentioned above, at ICCF24 Trevithick said most of the old Team Google are still working on LENR. This new video, and Schenkel's heading up the 2 ARPA-E Teams (LLBL/Univ of Cal-Davis) proves it.
Makes you wonder what they saw during their 4 year TG (Project Charleston), they did not put in their Nature paper?
Philip Ball wrote a piece that had a few hints in it, though the details now escape me.
Nice find Ahlfors . When that Nature article was first published, I don't think any of us would have predicted most, if not all, of the old Google Team would continue on doing "research that builds upon foundational work summarized in the 2019 Nature article", as they put it. They basically claimed they saw nothing, so what was there to build on? Little did we know that that was only the beginning of better times.
Will never forget back then how the field became demoralized and started pointing fingers at themselves, and/or blaming TG for the failure. Most thought it would set us back years, and dry up what little funding there was. Instead, we now have probably more public and private money flowing into the science than at any time in LENR history.
We are seeking highly motivated, self-driven individuals
Your posted texts are unreadable... Try to use pdf's!
Your posted texts are unreadable... Try to use pdf's!
Here’s the source link.
Thanks...
looks like one more attempt to waste money...
I know you have a critic view of this new mainstream approach to LENR, and I, probably many more, understand and agree with your criticism, but from a Public Relations War point of view, as I maintain one has been ongoing since 1989, mainstream acceptance of the field is a blessing.
I know you have a critic view of this new mainstream approach to LENR, and I, probably many more, understand and agree with your criticism, but from a Public Relations War point of view, as I maintain one has been ongoing since 1989, mainstream acceptance of the field is a blessing.
Considering the reaction to Google’s first pass, it seems that much of the negative public relations war on modern, well-funded LENR research is mostly enacted by the LENR enthusiasts themselves.
but from a Public Relations War point of view, as I maintain one has been ongoing since 1989, mainstream acceptance of the field is a blessing.
Yes and no. I get that it is a blessing now, but if people are funded for projects that will fail, that will ultimately cause harm. I cannot be sure these projects will fail, but I fear they will.
Considering the reaction to Google’s first pass, it seems that much of the negative public relations war on modern, well-funded LENR research is mostly enacted by the LENR enthusiasts themselves.
The PR war I was referring to is the one from mainstream against Cold Fusion. The reaction of the CF community to the Nature article was mixed and completely understandable. I think the assymetry is huge.
Yes and no. I get that it is a blessing now, but if people are funded for projects that will fail, that will ultimately cause harm. I cannot be sure these projects will fail, but I fear they will.
We have to wait and see, but so far I see no downside. As an example, the CleanHME and HERMES projects are steadily churning out positive results that perhaps aren’t the “now” solution everyone wants but do confirm undeniably that CF/LENR is real, so warrants funding will keep flowing.
The ARPA-E funding I think will have the same effect, plenty of us disagree with the theoretical path they are choosing, but I am sure they will find results worth keeping the research funding flowing.
The ARPA-E funding I think will have the same effect, plenty of us disagree with the theoretical path they are choosing, but I am sure they will find results worth keeping the research funding flowing.
If the theoretical path is wrong, how can they get positive results? They are treating cold fusion as if it were plasma fusion in disguise. They seem to be looking for plasma fusion products such as neutrons, which cold fusion does not produce. If we are right, these projects are doomed to failure.
If the theoretical path is wrong, how can they get positive results? They are treating cold fusion as if it were plasma fusion in disguise. They seem to be looking for plasma fusion products such as neutrons, which cold fusion does not produce. If we are right, these projects are doomed to failure.
They are standard model fixated, looking for the keys under the lamp-post, because that's where the light is. Unfortunately, the keys are somewhere they won't even acknowledge exists.
Nice find Ahlfors . When that Nature article was first published, I don't think any of us would have predicted most, if not all, of the old Google Team would continue on doing "research that builds upon foundational work summarized in the 2019 Nature article", as they put it. They basically claimed they saw nothing, so what was there to build on? Little did we know that that was only the beginning of better times.
Will never forget back then how the field became demoralized and started pointing fingers at themselves, and/or blaming TG for the failure. Most thought it would set us back years, and dry up what little funding there was. Instead, we now have probably more public and private money flowing into the science than at any time in LENR history.
Some of us, at the time, felt that it was a positive report and that the LCF stuff had potential for interesting future research...
Which, hey, perhaps just shows that skeptics can occasionally be right 
