Updates from Google on LENR research

    Quote from Ahlfors

    PLOP

    US20210151206A1


    THE INVINCIBLE TEAM


    Thanks as always. That one patent application resulting from the TG funded effort, IMO, had the best chance to slip by the USPTO examiner and be approved. It was the only solid lead reported in the Nature paper that I recall.


    Sadly it was rejected. And in no unambiguous terms, as the examiner used quite strong wording IMO in his very long rebuttal. He even went so far as to call LENR (which the team denied it being) "fringe science", and gasp, used Schenkel's own public writings against him. What a low blow.


    Nothing new here, LENR has seen this all before. As always it appears that whoever wants to capitalize/monetize on their lab results, or theory, will just have to make something with it, and go from there.

    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    Yes it does not. Nor is Charleston part of the Team Google DoE effort, except as you say historic, sort of.

    Other than that..

    👍〽️✔〽️✔〽️✔〽️✔〽️🌎

    I do my best to keep my eyes on the bouncing ball in order to keep up...

    There is no evidence for this seperate 'Google / DOE effort'. In the past you have cited the three patents and the Munday DARPA grant as proof of this effort, but none of those things substantiate the claim that such an effort exists.


    The patents are part of Project Charleston. That the DOE is one of the groups on the 'reaction products' patent is not proof that there is a collaboration between Google and the DOE. Others would know better than me, but I interpret this as an artefact of some of the work having been done at LBNL.


    Three swallows do not make a summer.

    Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

    orsova Assist me in finding an article, paper, presentation or interview where a member of Team Google discusses any of the three patents and the research and data which led to the patent(s) development.

    If the patents are proof of a seperate effort, why are they on Project Charleston's website? That the three patents came out of Project Charleston's research seems the simplest answer.


    Whether or not they've talked about any particular thing in public proves nothing about where the work originated, or the conditions under which it originated.


    Moreover, the 'reaction products' patent's authors are the leading scientists of Project Charleston. Would you have us believe that the same scientists were involved in two parallel programs inside Google; one disclosed and one held closely? That seems convoluted.

    The series of three Nature articles, the first one by Team Google, followed immediately with Parks article (they were written simultaneously in my opinion a coordinated negative portrayal of the art of 'cold fusion) the third article being a (sort of but not quite) more balanced negative article by the editor.


    These three Nature articles caused a whole big bunch of negative internet articles to appear.


    Team Google knew this would happen.


    All three wet cell, none dry cell discussions. Peter Gluck displayed more savvy in argueing wet/dry importance than the articles, no?


    OK orsova

    I'm ok with your opinion of my opinions and musings.


    A reminder.


    No one knew about Team Google dry cell research, or the patents, or the DoE LLNL fusion research employees on Team Google, till that was 'scooped' and posted here for discussion.


    Big Thanks


    I predict Team Google has more advanced efforts under way, with partners in high energy physics, that will lead to compact non radioactive nuclear energy gadgets. These gadgets lineage will, in part, trace back to cold fusion LENR and CMNS observational pursuits.


    I don't mind if it don't matter.


    The three Nature articles hurt the publics image of 'cold fusion' by being misleading and stuck in ancient history.


    orsova

    With your knowledge of history and what Team Google has been doing are you satisfied?


    I'm not.

    Quote from Shane D.

    As always it appears that whoever wants to capitalize/monetize on their lab results, or theory, will just have to make something with it, and go from there.

    I know little about patents, but people who know about them tell me that if you could make a very convincing demonstration device, such as stand alone small generator, the Patent Office would be forced to give you a patent even if they think cold fusion is "fringe science." (Whatever "fringe science" is.) It would not have to be a practical device. For example, suppose it was a generator the size of a shoebox, and it \produced only a few milliwatts of electricity from thermoelectric devices, plus enough waste heat to feel with your hand. Suppose it kept doing this for weeks. I suppose that would not be useful for any real world purpose. However, it would convince most engineers and scientists that the effect is real.


    That is what people have told me . . .


    If you could make a gadget which produces tactile heat continuously for weeks, with no input power of any sort -- no heat or electricity -- then I suppose that would also convince the Patent Office. I mean something in heat after death mode. Perhaps it would be triggered by heating it up, and then kept well insulated. I do not know if that is possible. The point is, it would not necessarily have to produce electricity.

    Quote from Team Google

    and it, you know, you can destroy people's careers.


    Quote from Team Google

    the stuff that we saw in cold fusion was really bad science as opposed to bad topic area. And so we wanted to see if you had a bunch of really smart scientists say, what would they look for in that area in which cold fusion was reputed to be?

    No smart people here

    Just really bad science


    A sign posted at ICCF24

    Or at the

    Solid State Energy Summit


    Thanks Team Google

    Fair enough. I certainly would like for you to be proven correct. Time is the revelator, as always. I've said my piece and I'll stop haranguing you now.


    Quote

    are you satisfied?

    No. If I'm right, and it is indeed finished, then I'm not satisfied at all.


    Indeed, if it is over, then critics of the field can now say "Google looked at all that nonsense again and found nothing."


    What I wanted was an in depth replication of the co-dep work. I don't understand why they spent so much time building and perfecting elaborate calorimeters in an attempt to replicate Rossi, for example, when they could have been constructing and iterating co-dep cells for relative peanuts.


    Additionally, there was already a robust literature on the co-dep work, and so they would not have been publishing into a vacuum. They could have pointed at NASA and SPAWAR and used the history of the experiments to bolster their own claim to having found something interesting.

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.