Posts by mjtrac

Quote from JedRothwell

This has nothing to do with the nature of the scientific proof, or the quality, magnitude or the number of replications. None of those criteria apply.

I am an outsider to this field who, like most people, would prefer that future human generations not be decimated.

I also have a great deal of respect for academic scientists and non-conformist scientists. My first response to Dr. Mizuno's results is to believe that they are genuine observations stated with honesty and sincerity. But when I think about how I'd behave if I had world-changing results, I keep coming back to this: barring some good reason, I would immediately hand my setup over to independent observers and begin working on a second copy. I would say something like this to myself: "while I know that I am honest, and I have seen these results with my own eyes, I understand that there seem to be many disbelievers, and so I realize that I will need objective outsiders able and willing to confirm the results I am seeing from my device in order to convince the disbelievers." I would not leave things in the hands of potential replicators, given that I could provide proof myself, even if only for one instance of my device.

If there were some good reason for which I could not find people who I would trust as objective and competent outsiders, I'd tell the world my reasoning.

Replication efforts are fine; it just seems like that basic first step has been skipped. If this were some minor result, I could understand that. But this is more or less the future of the world. If I had a device which heated a room on 300 W input power, when the room typically required 1kW+ to be heated, I would be paying people to come look, because I'd know that if I could demonstrate my capability to an objective outside observer, I'd save the planet, become vastly wealthy, and win the Nobel Prize. I would feel confident that by having an outside objective observer team observe my device, I could bypass any number of (hypothetical) academic scientists worried about their funding.

Perhaps this exact thing has been done with Dr. Mizuno's device, but those objective outside observers have also not been able to convince anyone. But I haven't heard about that.

Quote from JedRothwell

What does that mean? A researcher cannot "replicate" himself. He can repeat the experiment, or improve it. Mizuno has been doing that for years.

In research "replication" generally means someone else does it.

Let me clarify, Jed. By replication, I mean the following:

1. Dr. Mizuno and team constructs a reactor as identical as possible to the existing R20.

2. Dr. Mizuno and team validate that this reactor's behavior is similar or identical to that documented in their paper.

3. The Mizuno team then gives (or sells) the newly constructed reactor to a team, perhaps one sponsored by Google, which can confirm the results observed by the Mizuno team, with complete independence from that team. If the reactor cannot be moved, it could be developed in a room that is then given over to the independent team, for whatever rent is appropriate.

I can understand the disinclination of Mizuno and team to repeat the experiment, as opposed to improving upon it. But given the odd situation in which LENR experimenters find themselves with respect to much of the world's physics community, the value of a second copy of the R20, produced by Mizuno but operated independently, would be enormous. Do you disagree?

Independent replication by groups unrelated to Mizuno's team would be valuable; if one or more such groups are able to replicate similar quantities of excess heat, then any potential confusion will be gone and there would be no need for Mizuno and his group to spend time on replication.

But if it is true that the Mizuno group is the one most likely to be able to successfully produce a twin of the R20, then I believe their doing that would be a greater service to humanity than any work on improvements.

As I've stated before, I think it would be appropriate to offer the Mizuno team or anyone else a substantial reward for providing a copy of the R20 which could then be independently confirmed to produce similar amounts of excess heat. I'd be happy to pledge $100 or more (a token amount, I know) and I believe hundreds or thousands of others would also be happy to pledge amounts in that range, if the pledges were only to be collected and transferred upon independent confirmation of the results by an independent team, such as Google. In fact, I'd be honored to have been allowed to participate in that tiny way, and I feel certain that others would feel that way as well.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Can we all agree, including kirkshanahan hopefully, that a device which has a 50W input and a 250W output when a comparable blank/control device has the expected 50W out- can we agree that such a result would not be negated by any type of conceivable calibration shift? That, of course, is the performance level claimed by Mizuno. If we agree on this, then we are back to concluding that Mizuno has some sort of stupendous mistake (like a decimal point error) or dishonesty or the only alternative conclusion is that Mizuno has invented a novel "anomalous" heat source, no? Are there other options?

This is precisely why Dr. Mizuno, as a matter of course, should replicate his experiment himself assuming he has the means to do so, and why Google, unless it is completely convinced that the result is fraudulent, should ensure he has the means to do so. He has results which, if replicated for impartial observers, would eliminate any legitimate controversy.

Let me lay out the basic points:

1. If excess heat can be generated by Dr. Mizuno's materials and at the rate he asserts, the impact on humanity would be overwhelming.

2. As the impact on humanity would be overwhelming, it would mean lifetime fame, wealth, and awards for Dr. Mizuno.

3. Most scientists dream of having an overwhelmingly positive impact on humanity, or at least of having fame, wealth and awards.

4. Therefore, a scientist with extraordinary results would want these results to be broadly acknowledged.

5. The path to such acknowledgement is replication in a manner open to the observation and inspection of impartial observers.

6. The person with the greatest likelihood of replication is Dr. Mizuno himself.

There is a fairly small set of reasons why Dr. Mizuno might not be conducting the replication himself. Perhaps he lacks the resources to replicate. Perhaps he is unwilling to divert his time to repeat things he's already done. Perhaps -- and I am not alleging this, I am only listing it -- he knows his results cannot be replicated. Perhaps -- and I am also not alleging this, but trying to be thorough -- he has been given cause to fear for his safety if he replicates.

If the problem is his lack of resources, Google or any medium-sized company or philanthropist could easily eliminate that problem.

If the problem is unwillingness to repeat himself, perhaps the benefits he would accrue on successful replication could be made apparent -- Google could certainly make that clear by offering a substantial award upon delivery of a successful reactor. If the problem is fear for his safety, Google could mitigate that issue.

If the problem is that he knows his results cannot be replicated, then solving the other issues above should make that apparent.

But to release a paper picturing a device which, with an electrical input in the hundreds of watts, is claimed to have heated a house which would require thousands of watts to generate sufficient heat via electric means is to assert that one has solved the largest technological problem facing humanity today, and it seems -- doesn't it?! -- like anyone with such a contribution already made would do everything in their power to see their contribution come to fruition.

I do not disagree with all those who are suggesting that a Mizuno replication would be a high priority. However, my take is somewhat different. I would like Google to contract with Mizuno to have him produce his own replication of the R20, which he would make available to Google researchers for their own continued examination and use, in their own labs. Ideally, Google's representatives would be present during all phases of the replication's construction and preparation, perhaps assisting, perhaps just observing.

Assuming Mizuno's results are accurate, he himself should be in the best position to replicate his work. If his work can be replicated and confirmed by Google, that will be world-changing.

If others fail to replicate, it can always be attributed to things outside Mizuno's control, and what is needed is undeniable proof of Mizuno's claim. He is in the best position to provide such undeniable proof.

I'm not an LENR researcher.