LENR Calender Member
  • Member since May 23rd 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by LENR Calender

    Great, you found the original calibration spreadsheet. It seems that the way it was shared only allows viewing (but not copying the file, looking at underlying values/formulas etc), which is the source of the extra "2-decimal rounding" when copying the data.

    I personally consider this case closed!

    I'm gonna try to conclude this V*I discussion, at the risk of getting shot:

    I finally looked at the actual data.

    Active dataset comes from here:

    Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results


    Calibration dataset comes from here:

    Mizuno reports increased excess heat

    I believe this is where Ascoli got his data from since I followed the links from this image. Annoyingly, the calibration dataset isn't in a google spreadsheet, so it was a pain to copy it from that thread post. I don't know exactly where RobertBryant got it (from another thread it seems)

    OK now for the juicy part:

    In the calibration data posted on the forum, U and I are rounded to two decimals e.g. 67.68 and 1.77.

    In the active data that is on google docs, data appears like it is rounded the same way. However, it turns out that data isn't rounded, but formatted. If you click on a cell and look at the actual value in the formula bar, it turns out values are, for example, 49.815 and 2.41983. Rounded to 3 decimals for U and 5 for I.

    I submit that this explains the remarks about wattmeter data by Ascoli. There is no discrepancy in power measurement method, there is a discrepancy in how the data was presented to the forum and thus a discrepancy in how many significant digits we have for U and I.

    Just so we can stop all the speculation: where did the calibration power data come from in the 2016/05/20 spreadsheet? The title of the column says V*I but probably measured directly with a wattmeter.

    I hope my posts don't upset you too much. I am just trying to move things forward given that the conversation between you and THH is not going anywhere.

    I asked this "question" to Jed a few weeks ago:

    >>It would be much more productive for Jed to take a quick look at the most recent data and see if input power is still being calculated in a different manner for control and actual run. If yes, I would really wonder why

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Nope. Same instruments and methods. Note also that the power supply overhead is modest. I don't recall how much, but when it supplies 50 W to a resistance heater, the power supply does not draw much more than that. Around 70 W, I think. There is no digital watt meter that would mistake 300 W for 70 W. There is no likelihood three meters would all make that mistake and come out with the same answer to within a fraction of 1%.

    This is reassuring, and I hope that we will one day see a spreadsheet that contains data from equivalent sources for control and actual run. Presumably the data from at least one of the meters was recorded for both cases.

    I might be wrong, but I believe you are not representing Ascoli65's nitpicking properly.

    Your point, if I understand correctly is that discrepancies between P and V*I are to be expected, and that those discrepancies will increase in % as the absolute value of power decreases. You make a point that those discrepancies are to be expected by bringing up the blower data.

    Now, my understanding is that you are just adding color to the "spikes are easily explained by rounding effects" at the bottom left of the image below (at the bottom of this post), i.e. the P-v*i data in the active run.

    But that's not what Ascoli's analysis is about. If you look at the calibration run, the difference between P and V*I is certainly not due to rounding effect.

    I believe Ascoli's analysis shows that, for input power, calibration power was measured directly by a wattmeter, while active power was measured by V*I.

    Does it matter? I don't know! Everything else is just speculation. I would say that it's a bit weird to have anything change between calibration and active runs when it doesn't have to change.

    If I was about to spend $XX,XXX or more on a replication, I would certainly want to see the data of the latest experiments first. I hope that this data will be made available now that Jed can recover from the ICCF. It would be reassuring to confirm that this "issue" is not there anymore.


    I'm gonna move to lrpi-forum.com now... See you all there!

    1. 2- The name of the energy is heat or electricity, it does not change, but obviously you mean the name of the processinvolved: I think Long Range Elementary Particle Interactions is more proper, but the problem is not semantic, it is sistemic.

      Warm Regards,


    Our two biggest concerns in that arena are (a) runaway heaters, and (b) fires. If LENR exists, it represents something not in our considerations, but something that is clearly in the (a) category. We need to know if it is a threat,m and if so, to build that into our safety envelope.

    If the existence of LENR implies major safety concerns in your workplace, wouldn't it be safer to assume that the LENR results are real, rather than assume that they were due to calibration errors etc? How is LENR not in your considerations when you have been exposed in the field for so many years? To your credit you are at least here keeping track of the latest results.

    I'm assuming that, by the word "priority", we mean the most important experiment.

    I suggest to scratch that sort of thinking.

    When a student starts a new program, they don't ask "what's the highest priority course I should take?".

    Also, it shouldn't matter what the LENR community "wants to see conducted". This isn't Youtube's recommendation algorithm.

    Of course, if we go back to the root of the word priority, we can turn this question into "which experiment does the LENR community recommend Team Google work on first?"

    I'd suggest working on replicating F&P's work. It's well documented, and has a lot of replications. Spend 2-3 years on that, then branch out once you have successes.

    I really can't see a huge company like Google can have had an LENR lab without some F&P experiments running.

    You cannot expect people will replicate this in the first test at hundreds of watts. Let's hope they get 10 watts sometime in the next year or so. That is realistic. As I said, 100 W would not be a replication, it would be a miracle.

    IIRC, Jed, you said that you know of successful replicator(s). Do you know anything else? Do you know how long it took them to be successful? Did they ever get more than a few watts?

    I'd say it's a good thing that you are working on managing expectations.

    Dr. Storms made some hypothesis on how to improve Mizuno's results, based on his theory [1]

    Dr.Storms also said [2]: "I have the equipment to test the Mizuno claim immediately but I'm occupied by other projects right now. " and "My approach is to use his method to test my model rather than replicating exactly what Mizuno did. In other words, I intend to search for what he did to the material to make it nuclear active rather than try duplicate his method and materials."

    My suggestion to Dr.Storms, would be to, when he has the time, work on replicating Mizuno (or collaborate with a replicator). Having a successful result would create a baseline to test the predictions published at the end of his latest document [1].

    [1] https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…burnishing-final-1-1-pdf/

    [2] Team Google wants your opinion: "What is the highest priority experiment the LENR community wants to see conducted?"

    From Parkhomov's latest paper, we can see the importance of "cleaning" the reactor.



    I think you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that anyone not use their mass spec. I am suggesting that Alan demonstrate the need for a mass spec.

    Deneum certainly thought they did a reasonable job at degassing. I suggest showing that they are wrong.

    Certainly anyone running this experiment will make a reasonable guess as to when they will check if the reactor has degassed. Then they will look at their mass spec data and possibly see they were wrong. That's the kind of anecdotal data I was suggesting sharing.

    We can have people saying that you need a mass spec, or we can have data actually demonstrating it. I like the data better.

    There's an hypothesis that without mass spec, you're running blind.

    (1) I suppose that there is a prep process and an amount of baking out time that you would find reasonable in order to get a decontaminated reactor if you didn't have mass spec (just like Deneum did).

    (2) I suppose there would be a threshold in terms of mass spec results where you decide your reactor is ready.

    If you follow the process in (1) and find out that your reactor is still not ready according to (2), then that is evidence that replicators need mass spec. I suppose it would be a bit anecdotal and subjective, but better than nothing.