What should we do next ? - A relevant question from Matt Trevithick

  • David Nygren, LENR forum will not be able to give a solid advice in open discussion threads.

    This forum has simply too much non-experts and the opinions are too scattered.


    The best option would be that LF staff selects a few members that have sufficient professional skills to form an advice team and then work out some advice in a restricted group.

  • The best option would be that LF staff selects a few members that have sufficient professional skills to form an advice team and then work out some advice in a restricted group.

    That has been tried here before and it comes with it's own drawbacks.


    Trevithick's question has been posited before by the likes of McKubre, Nagel (unsung hero of LENR), and many others. So can't hurt IMO to get everyone in on it this time. There won't be a consensus like you say, but a TG2 (Team Google 2) and other's in the community looking for direction can certainly get some good ideas from hearing what others think.

  • The principal protest about the previous presentation by Matt's group was that while running the experiments they presented they did not seek much in the way of ideas or assistance from any of the best known names in the field, except for Ed Storms who gave them some advice on Seebeck calorimeters. They are obviously looking to avoid a repeat of that problem.


    There are as many ideas (almost) as there are experimenters, and half a bushel of competing theoretical frameworks. But I would suggest they give up on 'wet' systems and look at the hot and dry kind - Celani being an obvious example of somebody getting results that way.

  • That has been tried here before and it comes with it's own drawbacks.

    In that case I would advise them to start a project at ResearchGate so they can moderate themselves who's invited.

    The professional level at ResearchGate is sufficiently high and is moderated quite strictly.
    Or, participate in the projects that already exists in this field at ResearchGate.


    They can use LF if they like, but this requires a lot of time spending to filter out the nonsense posts and trolls.

  • I guess I would recommend they give a bunch of money to Dennis Pease. Because, as I mentioned in the other thread, he has a garage full of equipment from the SKINR project, and it turns out they had very significant excess heat in one experiment, continuing for 58 days, plus 4 days of heat after death. That is impressive. See:


    http://ikkem.com/iccf23/orppt/ICCF23-OA-01%20Hubler.pdf


    They should also try to replicate Mizuno, perhaps with help from Ramarao. And Frank Gordon.


    They have not spent any money in the last few years. Their project seems to be over.

  • Very important slide Shane D. , and one that Trevithick probably needs to take by heart.


    I agree with JedRothwell that, if Project Charleston (PC) wants to move ahead with LENR, and answering their question of "What they should do next?", they need to start with the highly reproducible results. In that sense, the LEC has shown to be highly reproducible, so far, and also relatively tolerant to non exact replications, which is a highly desirable feature of any experiment, and has been shown to be in the case of the LEC.


    The Mizuno reactor, OTH, has been far more elusive to replicate, even considering the replication of Ramarao et al. Many others well equiped have tried with null results, but I agree a PC might have the chance to get the resources to do an exact replication as JedRothwell has insisted many times is required.


    Other experiments that IMO are relatively easy to replicate and disambiguate are the ones that lead to transmutations, but these seemed to be of no interest whatsoever to Team Google the first time they asked around.


    (BTW, thanks Shane D. for posting the link to videos of ICCF 23 to each relevant thread, very good move!).

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

  • The french Longchampt has been dead for so long, we should stop Mc Kubre from spending money on his outdated concepts. .

    The only French people who died too long ago, who could have contributed so much to the Lenr are De Broglie and Kervran and no one else, at least not Biberian, McKubre's great friend !

    McKubre must be stopped in his negative influencer position.

  • The french Longchampt has been dead for so long, we should stop Mc Kubre from spending money on his outdated concepts. .

    The only French people who died too long ago, who could have contributed so much to the Lenr are De Broglie and Kervran and no one else, at least not Biberian, McKubre's great friend !

    McKubre must be stopped in his negative influencer position.

    There is much to be frustrated about with LENR. 32 years later and we are still talking about the same old experiments, with little to show in terms of improved results. There is still no viable theory, with none on the horizon.


    But that does not mean we cant be thankful for those like Biberian, McKubre, Nagel, Miley and the many others who have kept the science alive. Would we be better off had they simply retired, and let the field wither on the vine?


    To their credit, the old guard understands the science needs some fresh new blood to spark new ideas, and have tried for years to make that happen. Miley being one of the notables with his scholarships at the University of Illinois.


    And now we have Trevithick and his Project Charleston teammates (can't get used to that name), who have helped lower the barriers for new students to take up the study. Plenty to be thankful for IMO.

  • In that sense, the LEC has shown to be highly reproducible, so far, and also relatively tolerant to non exact replications, which is a highly desirable feature of any experiment, and has been shown to be in the case of the LEC.

    Well, it hasn't been "shown" yet, but it is looking good.

    The Mizuno reactor, OTH, has been far more elusive to replicate, even considering the replication of Ramarao et al. Many others well equiped have tried with null results,

    Regrettably it does seem elusive. Perhaps it can be made easier to replicate with better surface analysis. If we could characterize the material better, I think it would be more reliable.

  • Perhaps the groups they funded have not yet exhausted their funding?

    Trevithick's graph showed it went to zero after 2019. I think he said there has been no funding after that, and I think he said all the projects are over. Even if they still have funding, I do not think any new groups will be funded. That's what the graph indicates to me. Of course that could change. It makes little sense for him to say he wants to bring hundreds of new scientists into the field if Google does not plan to fund them.

  • I understand that it is necessary to remain consensual and tolerant but, it is stronger than me, I tend to reason like a business manager who asks for a pay back regarding the amont of money spent since 30 years :)

    The money spent over the last 30 years amounts to sparrow's tears, as they say in Japanese. Not even noise level funding. It is far, far less than what is needed. Either you want cold fusion, or you don't. If you don't want it, then one dollar would be too much. Most opponents say this. If you want it, you have to realize it will take hundreds of millions or billions before we will have any idea if can be made practical. The money has to be risked. That was the case for things like solid state radar, self driving cars, quantum computing, the star wars space defense, plasma fusion, or the nuclear power reactor now being constructed in Georgia.


    If it costs $1 billion to determine it can work, it will cost hundreds of billions more to implement. Then it will pay back that amount every few months for the rest of history.


    I think it is very likely to work, for reasons I discussed in the video and elsewhere.

  • If it costs $1 billion to determine it can work, it will cost hundreds of billions more to implement. T

    Not all at once! I don't mean it will cost ~$400 billion before the first reactor ships. I mean that over 20 to 50 years, one step at a time, various machines will be replaced with cold fusion powered ones. The ~$400 billion will be paid for out of profits. Probably hundreds of billions have been spent on semiconductor R&D, and trillions have been spent on fabrication equipment. All of that money came out of profits. No one minded paying it. You contribute every time you buy an electronic gadget. In the future, when you buy a cold fusion generator you will be contributing to the R&D of better generators.

  • Post by orsova ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • Matt's presentation is good example of why LENR-CANR is not progressing as might any other field of study.


    Rather than a field of study, we have a few self proclaimed experts filling the bandwidth with myths and an expectation that success is happening in secret or in a few private companies. This is not something that can be fixed by voting for your favorite theory.


    Our field of study is buried in widely accepted claims. Google attempted to address LENR by looking at these widely accepted myths. The result was predictable: myths are myths. So it appears in their publications that LENR is a myth because google followed the miss-direction. Further, they promote the position that science only happens when done by those qualified in an academic environment. I believe the prejudice of their approach will keep them publishing errors of LENR myths. This is at first glance not good for LENR. The upside is they have opened funding for more creative and discriminating researcher in our field. The biggest problem for our field is that not delivering to promises is considered fraud. Not so if you are a qualified academic rather than an independent researcher.


    If google had based they efforts on published data and looked at patent efforts, Or if they could have got past the wall of secrets of the private companies who may be succeeding, then our field would have opened up to funding even faster.


    However, regardless of secrets or lies, technology that work eventually come to public use. I don't believe we will need billions of dollar to determine if LENR happens. It does. I published it. There are some big hurdles to making cold fusion a practical energy source. That is a creative problem.


    I enjoy this forum because some facts get thought all the noise that is most of the content here. Those facts are useful in advancing the field of study. I am very grateful for your help.

  • Thanks, Shane, great slide indeed!


    It was presented by the most famous researcher still active in the field. McKubre was in the group of 5 super experts who submitted in 2004 the request to DoE for funding CF, and that selected the F&P "Simplicity paper" as the first in a very short list of the most representative results obtained over the first 15 years, then elapsed after the F&P announcement.


    After 15+ more years, the myth of the 1992 boil-off experiment is still alive. It's time to verify its reality.


    The 1992 boil-off experiment is exactly the one which should be reproduced in order to solve the mystery. It can be exactly reproduced. Lonchampt has shown that it can be done.


    This is the simple answer to the question from Matt Trevithick, as it was 2 years ago:

  • But I would suggest they give up on 'wet' systems and look at the hot and dry kind

    Wet chemistry F&P replication is limited to a temperature of ~100C

    as with Michael Staker 2019.. Figure 22

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ter-Nuclear-Science-2.pdf


    Good results for "dry/hot" from among others

    Iwamura

    Takahashi

    Mizuno

    Celani

    and now Ramarao(replicating Mizuno)


    operating in a much higher temperature range..with indications of higher COP.

    the experimental setup for " hot/dry"

    appears to be simpler and the gas concentration of D2/H2

    can be controlled much better than in electrochemistry.