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

    Innerspace


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


    In answer to that question it is best to look what Matt Trevithick and the Google CMNS Team have been doing for the past two or three years. The patents speak for themselves.


    We now know the Google CMNS team includes the DoE at LLNL UC Berkeley and Thomas Schenkel; who is the Program Head for Fusion Science and Ion Beam Technology in the Accelerator Technology and Applied Physics Division.


    Thomas Schenkel is the lead inventor listed on the latest Google/CMNS patent in which the DoE is listed as one of the assignes.


    That said...

    I'm a layman, yet I'd also recommend reading the NASA and Navy/Global Energy Corporation (GEC) patents 2007 up till/including the recent NASA GRC GEC Lattice Confinement Fusion patents. These groups are certainly building on each others works... in my opinion - as they should be.


    gbgoblenote

    I've looked... extensively. Endlessly.


    I have yet to find any of these folks, in any articles written about their (fruitless?) research efforts,

    or in any of the interviews they have given... no mention of the patents.

    Never do they mention what is disclosed in the patents...

    A deep study of these patents and a deep look at the skill set of Thomas Schenkel and his lab will give anyone an idea of something to do next.


    Quote from Innerspace

    I would suggest that the possibility of low temperature fission be given more attention within LENR.

    Do these patents lend weight to your suggestion? I think they do.

    Quote from Innerspace

    With the recent pathetic demonstration of Rossi creating more controversy about the feasibility of cold fusion,


    With large unstable atoms, fission nuclear chain reactions would seem to be triggered and maintained by neutrons. Could not similar nuclear chain reactions triggered by electrons and/or ball lightning occur for far smaller, more stable elements such as potassium, iron, palladium and copper to produce fission products with minimal neutron production. The possibility of LTP fission and fusion reactions should be on the board at all times until one such interpretation leads to the desired low cost, low neutron LENR power generation.


    And unless the LENR group can find the required answers, nobody will in the near future.

    Yes, it appears that electrons and/or ball lightening can cause a fusion/fission sequence. As has been shown in work of Ken Shoulder and numerous reports of high voltage arcs by the Russians.


    So, what happens? Think of physics as quantum field theory and accept the standard model as a starting point. Then we need to deviate because large clusters with a charge to mass ratio of an electron isn't in the above physics. Rather bosons in quantum field theory are complex wave patterns in the field. We note that the weak force involves the W boson which has a charge. The decay of this complex wave pattern results in an electron, an antineutrino and energy. That energy is associated with the electron and the antineutrino unequally and with no specific values per particle. One suggestion therefore is that W boson is an electron with a complex wave pattern in a quantum field. If so then, something like a W boson might be created from the type of experiments above and perhaps also by various experiments by LENR experimenters.


    I have analyzed electric arc experiments. Particularly one by R Santilli in Deuterium contaminated with some atmospheric air.

    https://patentimages.storage.g…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf

    That analyst proposes fusion/ fission occurs due to W bosons in a form I call a W wave. The formation of W bosons allows electrons to become Ken Shoulder EVOs. It's a balance between electron repulsion and a local gravity cause by special relativity. These W-boson based clusters can collide with atoms and penetrate to the atom's nucleus which causes an excitation which is expressed as a supermagnetic atom. Supermagnetic atoms can bond one with another as a magnet to a magnet to make what R Santilli calls magnecules. A cluster of supermagnetic atoms is catalytic for the fusion/ fission sequence. Using the assumption of supermagnetic atoms I did a mass balance on R Santilli data and found that the nuclear composition changed as follows in ppm: Nitrogen 9061, Oxygen -4805, Hydrogen 9793 and Deuterium -29877. This data is accurate to 3 ppm. Hence, the stiochiometry is 7 atoms of deuterium and one atom of oxygen combine to form 2 atoms of nitrogen and 2 atoms of hydrogen. If you examine proposed cascade of reactions which occurs in supermagnetic clusters of deuterium and oxygen you will find a resemblance to one of the cycles reported for fusion in star. The cluster catalyst model is a good fit for most of the proposed LENR results on this forum.


    A deeper look at my report shows, as claimed also by R Santilli, that this type of fusion occurs in thunderclouds. When fusion/fission is a result of an electric arc in water, a gas is formed which can be used as a fuel. Again refer to my analysis, heat/torque produced by the gas in an engine test exceed the thermodynamic projections of energy content based on NASA chemical analysis by 40/13.2. Sadly, based on mass loss during transmutation and current physic paradigms, the energy yield should be much higher and should not be preserved as a fuel.


    Where most LENR forum participants focus on new lenr nuclear reactions, I have chosen to focus on why the above nuclear reaction is so different from expected and how to detect the mass output (or fuel) and convert it back to energy.

    I’m still not sure I understand why Project Charleston has shunned the codep work. It’s always seemed to me like the best shot at a reference experiment that they can publish replications of.


    Moreover, it’s always seemed to me like the difficulties of the codep work were more to do with technique and experience, and were thus far more tractable, than the problems of other experiments, which were more to do with the complete lack of delimitability of the parameter space.

    Quote from Drgenek

    7 atoms of deuterium and one atom of oxygen combine to form 2 atoms of nitrogen and 2 atoms of hydrogen.

    Sounds good as the alpha wave always is formed by 7 particles 14-N has not yet an alpha wave but such waves are resonant structures that act! Oxygen on the other side shows the first extra strong coupling with two parallel alpha waves. So these two particles are complimentary.


    But you do waste some Deuterium as the fusion to 4-He will deliver more energy than your process.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Sounds good as the alpha wave always is formed by 7 particles 14-N has not yet an alpha wave but such waves are resonant structures that act! Oxygen on the other side shows the first extra strong coupling with two parallel alpha waves. So these two particles are complimentary.


    But you do waste some Deuterium as the fusion to 4-He will deliver more energy than your process.

    Yes, indeed an atomic bomb come closer to delivering the expected energy per E=c*c. But less than 4/10,000 of the expected energy per E=c*c is delivered when the electric arc in through water as per production of aquafuel or when an electric arc is though deuterium contaminated with atmospheric gas.


    I keep hoping some will find an LENR fuel combination with a higher measured energy yield. That is find one that delivers the expected energy per E=c*c.

    Quote from orsova

    I’m still not sure I understand why Project Charleston has shunned the codep work. It’s always seemed to me like the best shot at a reference experiment that they can publish replications of.


    Patent

    Device and method of positionally accurate implantation of individual particles in a substrate surface

    US20050077486A1 - Device and method of positionally accurate implantation of individual particles in a substrate surface - Google Patents


    Research Paper

    Source-to-accelerator quadrupole matching section for a compact linear accelerator

    (PDF) Source-to-accelerator quadrupole matching section for a compact linear accelerator
    PDF | Recently, we presented a new approach for a compact radio-frequency (RF) accelerator structure and demonstrated the functionality of the... | Find, read…
    www.researchgate.net


    Quote . In this paper, we combine these units to form a working accelerator structure: a matching section between the ion source extraction grids and the RF-acceleration unit and electrostatic focusing quadrupoles between successive acceleration units. The matching section consists of six electrostatic quadrupoles (ESQs) fabricated using 3D-printing techniques.

    - end quote


    Consider Project Charleston is building on the co dep work of Navy/GEC; which is widely replicated... a lot of guiding data. The recent works of NASA LCF and GEC provide continued advances, data and guiding theory (PineScie)


    The folks at Project Charleston are part of the Google CMNS team which now includes the DoE at LLNL.


    The co dep protocol is old. The ability to create any co dep product (layers) with better precision is possible with advanced molecular 3d printing. The LLNL partnership brought these skillsets to the group years ago.


    Quote from Drgenek

    a higher measured energy yield. That is find one that delivers the expected energy per E=c*c.


    Yes this is paramount. I believe they have made significant headway by using a device like the one in the patent above.

    Higher energy yields...


    MEMS structures nano engineering and terahertz sensors and control... From their latest patent one can see they are engineering a nano environment. Developing advanced CMNS energy technologies.


    The research paper by their lead inventor of their latest patent provides food for thought...

    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    Consider Project Charleston is building on the co dep work of Navy/GEC; which is widely replicated... a lot of guiding data. The recent works of NASA LCF and GEC provide continued advances, data and guiding theory (PineScie)


    The folks at Project Charleston are part of the Google CMNS team which now includes the DoE at LLNL.


    The co dep protocol is old. The ability to create any co dep product (layers) with better precision is possible with advanced molecular 3d printing. The LLNL partnership brought these skillsets to the group years ago.

    I’m sorry, but with respect, I really don’t buy the proposition that PC is that much advanced on their public disclosures. When Trevithick says that thus far they’ve failed to replicate anything, I think he’s being earnest and candid.


    He knows how to be diplomatic, but his frustration is there to see. The proposition that they’re secretly in the middle of some well advanced Manhattan project with NASA and others just doesn’t square with the facts as I understand them.


    Yes, the codep work is ‘old’, as you say, but PC stated their aim as finding a single reference experiment that could be studied in great detail by multiple labs, with convincing results, and that could then be published in high impact journals. That the work has already mostly been done is exactly the point. I would have thought that key to the enterprise was a robust literature already in existence, with enough robustness in the experimental protocol that unaffiliated groups could pick it up and see it with their own eyes.


    It’s as much a problem of sociology and strategy as it is science, I think. The aim is and always should be to lift the stigma associated with the field, substantiate the core claims of F&P and make the field habitable for young scientists. One clean, robust and well documented experiment. That is ambitious enough.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    If it is the overall set of heterogeneous anomalies that comprises LENR evidence I'd reckon clear demarcation between those that are not LENR, and those that are, would help - looked at from the outside there is too much distraction.

    Some claims are far from others, such as biological transmutations. Most people would say they are beyond the demarcation. It can be difficult to judge others.


    That is not to say the biological transmutation claims are wrong. They might stand on their own merits. But at first glance they do not seem to be cold fusion. At least no to me. The only reason they might be is because of what McKubre calls the "conservation of miracles" rule of thumb.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    If no-one can agree what is distraction then I suggest CMNS is not a scientific field, at least as defined by the set of people who now think it is.

    I think you should rephrase that. Some people agree on one demarcation. Others agree on some other demarcation. You probably agree with one group or another. Suppose you exclude biological transmutations, as do I. In that case, you are aligned with my group that excludes them, and you think we are part of a scientific field, but others are not.


    This rule applies to most scientific fields, especially nascent ones. They have vague demarcations. They include some claims that some groups embrace and others reject. For example, some physicists support string theory or multi-universe theory, whereas others think they are bunk. Many claims in biology are accepted by some groups and rejected by others. Many claims in medicine are disputed. Even in engineering fields such as computers, which you would think are quantitative and strictly determinate, there are disputes such as whether Google's quantum computers are as fast as Google claims. Years ago there were disputes about whether RISC architecture was as good as claimed. Nowadays, there are countless disputes about the next steps needed in AI research. For example, how to reduce the number of examples needed to recognize patterns. Computers can recognize a giraffe only after seeing thousands of photos of one, whereas a small child can recognize a giraffe after seeing only a few examples, including perhaps a stuffed animal that does not much resemble a real giraffe.


    Having vague demarcations does not make a field unscientific. Or if it does, most things are not scientific.


    Quote from orsova

    I’m sorry, but with respect, I really don’t buy the proposition that PC is that much advanced on their public disclosures. When Trevithick says that thus far they’ve failed to replicate anything, I think he’s being earnest and candid.

    I agree that Google has not contributed anything to the field so far. Not for lack of trying. I don't know enough about their work to judge whether they have been unlucky or unskilled, but anyway, they have not made progress.

    Quote from orsova

    Yes, the codep work is ‘old’, as you say, but PC stated their aim as finding a single reference experiment that could be studied in great detail by multiple labs, with convincing results, and that could then be published in high impact journals. That the work has already mostly been done is exactly the point. I would have thought that key to the enterprise was a robust literature already in existence, with enough robustness in the experimental protocol that unaffiliated groups could pick it up and see it with their own eyes.


    It’s as much a problem of sociology and strategy as it is science, I think. The aim is and always should be to lift the stigma associated with the field, substantiate the core claims of F&P and make the field habitable for young scientists. One clean, robust and well documented experiment. That is ambitious enough.

    I have found a reference experiment which was published in a high impact journal. The sociology and strategy problem is paradigms. In the following example the authors themselves can't see past their own paradigms to see that the MEC likely produces electricity for as long as it contains water.


    From my post above you see that combining electricity and water cause a fusion/fission reaction sequence which produces supermagnetic atoms. A magnet causes a greater concentration of supermagnetic atoms at one electrode than the other and the supermagnetic atoms donate an electron to that electrode at the cost of becoming a regular atom. In the fluid between electrodes, ion flow restores electrical balance. Also, electrical activity in the fluid creates the W type complex wave patterns in the quantum fields which react with water to create nuclear active sites in the fluid which sites provide supermagnetic atoms to the electrode with the magnet. Hence, there is a sustained over unity electrical power production as long as water is present.


    The MEC was presented in this forum here: Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)"...replicators workshop - Page 41 - Replication Attempts - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com)

    They were arrogant .. probably thinking that money was enough to solve all the problems.

    For example, I witnessed a discussion between TG and a European team.

    An European speaker rightly pointed out to TG that the European experiments with powders used a much larger quantity, in fact lowering the TG results.

    Today, from a personal point of view, I am far from any collaboration with Europe and am not in relation with TG at all. However, what I'm sure is that a minimal powder amount has a strong effect on a trigger point.

    CMNS, LENR, Cold Fusion...


    Quote from orsova

    their aim as finding a single reference experiment that could be studied in great detail by multiple labs

    "Trevithick says that thus far they’ve failed to replicate anything"


    In review of this I've found Trevithick never said this. Please reference this quote and correct me. He was referring to attempts to replicate P and F only.


    The patents answer the question of what we (team Google) should do next. What they are doing right now is not dependent on public opinion or sociology. Their team is extensive, not fully known.


    The succession of patents suggests success.


    Nothing in the patents lend themselves to fulfilling the goal of

    quote

    finding a single reference experiment that could be studied in great detail by multiple labs


    More effort is expended developing these patents than anything else they have presented to the field thru their public interface, which portrays failure.


    Now we can discuss the two years development of the recently disclosed patent and the DoE LLNL partnership. The Google team has not chosen to discuss these yet. Perhaps they will soon.


    Meanwhile

    Mckubre NAE and cracks


    As I understand it the best way to create the nuclear reactive environment is not through maximum loading processes to create nano fissures ie cracks. One needs the correct architectures. 3d printing can provide the exact engineered nano fissures better than random cracking.


    GEC and codep


    This is already the sought after 'Lab Rat' and has been for some time at Austin, UC San Diego, and elsewhere.


    As I understand it the patents show they require a more intricate morphology, engineered to exact specifications in order to control reaction parameters. Multiple layers... Their MEMS ion accelerator requires advanced molecular 3d printing skills. Some Google team members invent these nano printers. Team Google is nano engineering advanced reactors with nano sensors and intricately tuned excitation control methods.


    That's how I read the patents. What will Google do next.

    Did the Google Team follow this established replicable experiment? I think they have improved upon it. Both patents are owned by the US.


    Their patent technology is similar to that found in the patent mentioned in this abstract.


    Abstract and Figures

    In the 26 years since the ill-named, and ill-timed, announcement of “cold fusion” by Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah critics have consistently raised five concerns: 1. Fusion neutron production isn’t commensurate with observed heat 2. Lack of a theory 3. Counter to “all that’s known in nuclear physics” 4. Irreproducibility 5. Lack of independent replication It can be argued that the phenomenon is neither “cold” nor “fusion”: but it is nuclear . Neutrons are not easily produced, nor, are they produced by purely chemical means. Hence, neutrons are the hallmark of nuclear reactions. Although neutron production isn’t commensurate with measured heat, several of our papers discuss neutron production. There is an abundance of contradictory theories, and hence, we’ve shied away from theory until we had data. Although the mantra, “theory guides, data decides”, doesn’t preclude experimental data, several voices outside the field refuse to recognize the phenomena unless there is a theory. However, our model-ing has provided guidance and suggests previously unrecognized magnetic and nuclear effects that clearly enable condensed matter nuclear reactions. The major “cold fusion” criticism has been the need to overcome the Coulomb Barrier between two positively charged deuterons at room temperature, 0.025 eV, as opposed to the hot fusion ion temperature of 5 keV (55 million K). However, low energy accelerator experiments with metal deuteride targets demonstrate enhanced electron screening that significantly raises the Gamow Factor thereby increasing the low temperature deuterium fusion cross-section. Other nuclear theories have been suggested to lower the Coulomb Barrier, though few of these are consistent with our data. Most important, the patented co-deposition protocol (US 8,419,919) discussed in these papers has shown independent reproducibility and replication across multiple laboratories in four countries negating two primary criticisms of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS): irreproducibility and lack of independent replication.


    Also


    Energetic Particle Emission in Pd/D Co-deposition: An Undergraduate Research Project to Replicate a New Scientific Phenomenon

    (PDF) Energetic Particle Emission in Pd/D Co-deposition: An Undergraduate Research Project to Replicate a New Scientific Phenomenon
    PDF | The experiments described here were part of independent research projects done by different groups of upper division, chemical engineering... | Find,…
    www.researchgate.net

    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    In the 26 years since the ill-named, and ill-timed, announcement of “cold fusion” by Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah critics have consistently raised five concerns: 1. Fusion neutron production isn’t commensurate with observed heat 2. Lack of a theory 3. Counter to “all that’s known in nuclear physics” 4. Irreproducibility 5. Lack of independent replication


    The major “cold fusion” criticism has been the need to overcome the Coulomb Barrier between two positively charged deuterons at room temperature, 0.025 eV, as opposed to the hot fusion ion temperature of 5 keV (55 million K).

    There is an unwillingness to look at proposed answers when egos consider the source inferior. Take for example the problem of coulomb barrier. As I indicated above the electroweak quantum field leads to cluster of electrons and clusters of supermagnetic atoms, either of which catalyst fusion/fission.


    To make sense of a multibody overall reaction, one must propose elementary steps that are two body collisions. Thus, in my analysis I propose the catalyst cluster via the phat photon mechanism photodisintergrates deuterium. Hence, hydrogen is a product as well as neutrons. The neutron has little problem passing the coulomb barrier. The W perturbation of quantum field has directive effect that greatly increase efficiency of neutron absorption to oxygen and minimizes free neutrons from a cluster composed of supermagnetic hydrogen and oxygen. The directive effect results from W pertubation of quantum fields of nearby baryons. For example, neutrons are more likely to flow to higher atomic number atoms that lower atomic number atoms. The production of neutrons from water activated by a laser supports my analysis of nuclear fusion/fission mechanism catalyzed by W based clusters. See 0906.4268.pdf (arxiv.org). Simakin et al propose the production of neutrons. They propose that "exposure in D2O results in generation of thermal neutrons, while laser exposure in H2O provides more energetic neutrons capable of fission of Th nuclei."


    So, we see the five concerns are directed at a reaction which is not the reaction which actually happens. The "so called" concerns are smoke and mirrors. If the critic would do due diligence, they would have their answers. The concerns are problems of paradigms and egos not of facts and science.

    What I would do next. Perhaps relevant?


    Encourage the Google CMNS energy technology development team (all of them) to discuss the reasons, the driving forces, behind the patent development and Department of Energy partnership. This would elevate the field. I suspect positive results guide Google's efforts. Also, encourage them to discuss the intricacies of the patent technology, dialogue with researchers and answering questions would contribute significantly to the field. Detail use of Ada. Release related data. Discuss latest guiding theories.

    I haven't read this thread entirely, it's too long and unfortunately there's too many things I have to do.


    David Nygren why are you being polite to Trevethick? In this presentation, he openly spits on the entire community when he claims it "cannot or will not teach", and he adds that his group was able to publish in Nature, so they've 'proven it can be done.' This man is a snake, he is posing as a member of the LENR community, when clearly he's here to sabotage the entire field. He claims they filtered for bias, by selecting only researchers who have ZERO experience with LENR. This is obviously scientific schlock, he hasn't filtered for bias against cold fusion, but instead designed a study that was destined to fail from the very beginning. Why would anyone be kind and friendly to such a snake?

    I personally knew Mat Trevithick, he is neither good nor bad, he is just a man like me or so many others. On the other hand, he never moved hidden, you should introduce yourself before saying such things.

    Quote from Rob

    I haven't read this thread entirely, it's too long and unfortunately there's too many things I have to do.


    David Nygren why are you being polite to Trevethick? In this presentation, he openly spits on the entire community when he claims it "cannot or will not teach", and he adds that his group was able to publish in Nature, so they've 'proven it can be done.' This man is a snake, he is posing as a member of the LENR community, when clearly he's here to sabotage the entire field. He claims they filtered for bias, by selecting only researchers who have ZERO experience with LENR. This is obviously scientific schlock, he hasn't filtered for bias against cold fusion, but instead designed a study that was destined to fail from the very beginning. Why would anyone be kind and friendly to such a snake?

    I've met Matt. We've spoken. Both he and his collaborator Ross are unwilling to go on the record. That to me indicates some dishonesty. And Matt is now working for a VC that is only investing in plasma fusion. So here he has shown up, shit on the entire community, designed a purposely flawed study, used it as an opportunity to grandstand over us claiming, 'if we can get published in Nature, obviously you could have too'. And thanks to Matt, we have more bad journalism like this one:

    Google’s $10 million cold fusion project has failed
    It may have dealt the decades-old pipe dream its final blow.
    futurism.com


    The subtitle quotes, "no evidence whatsoever", however, this quote doesn't appear ANYWHERE IN THE PAPER. And the journalist then goes on to conclude,

    Quote

    the new research all but kills the hope that cold fusion could one day power our world.

    This is also completely unfounded. But has the Google group taken actions to correct this bad journalism? OF COURSE NOT. They're happy with this conclusion.

    i'm French and how i see your state and its involvement ?

    First of all, there is the state i meant the white house,

    in parallel oil companies,

    in parallel the military industrial complex,

    in parallel the big companies as Google (out of oil business),

    All are more or less connected depending of topics involved.

    About the Lenr field, what done Google isn't what knows the military complex and how deal the oil companies with that...

    let's take an higher vision...

    Quote from Rob

    David Nygren why are you being polite to Trevethick? In this presentation, he openly spits on the entire community when he claims it "cannot or will not teach", and he adds that his group was able to publish in Nature, so they've 'proven it can be done.'

    Did he say that? That's silly. He is right that you can publish in Nature, but only if you meet four conditions:

    1. You have to be with a very large, wealthy, influential place like Google.
    2. You have to get a negative result, or a result you can describe as negative, even if it is actually positive. This is how MIT and CalTech managed to publish.
    3. You have let the editors at Nature change you paper to remove nearly all useful information and make the result seem even worse than it was.
    4. You have to agree that Nature will publish an accompanying editorial trashing your research and implying that others in your field are criminals and lunatics.

    I have only met Trevethick a few times. I think McKubre and others have a favorable opinion of him. I do not know why, or what he might have done to deserve that, but as I said I know practically nothing about him, so he may have a done many good things. Perhaps the Nature publication is mainly the fault of Nature editors. I wouldn't know.


    When he says the community "cannot or will not teach," I think he is partially right. Many researchers have held back results. Others have not made an effort to publish good papers. Some are incapable of writing good papers. No one knows that more than I do, since I have copy edited 297 papers, and there are about 100 more that should have been copy-edited, but the authors refused to let anyone help. Also, people cannot help much because they do not know much. There are many more unanswered questions in cold fusion than there are well-established facts.

    What can i add ?

    Probably Matt is both a poor engineer but also a good businessman. Now about Carl Page, he is also a good businessman both an humanist side too. Even though he organized a great ICCF last July, however the important things relating to the energy from the past and to the future do not happen at this scale. Also your procrastination won't have much influence. Here it's just friendly distraction...

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.