This paper is not very convincing. It takes as granted the results of Rossi experiments, and tries to explain them by the well known lattice IPM theory.A paper probably requested by Rossi! A much better paper, from D. Cook, is called “LENR and Nuclear structure Theory”. Or even, to understand deeply the theory, “The FCC Structure of the Nucleus and the Magnetic Interaction among Nucleons” (the bible!). In this later paper, Norman D. Cook explains how a proton can approach the excited based level of a nucleus, and fuse to it. In this Cook theory (which was already thought back in 1950 or earlier), the key element is to understand that the lattice structure of a nuclei is a consequence of the organization of the electromagnetic field imposed by the intimate structural organization of the quarks.I am always amazed to see that specialists of quantum physics still consider particles as objects when at the same time the official field quantum theory shows that everything comes from the electromagnetic field organization due to local energy distribution. One has to think that without charges and electromagnetic field, we would not see or touch any matter! Probably as black matter in the Universe.In fact, the quarks are already the first step of the electromagnetic field organization, which imposes around them the latticed organization of other nucleus, and the orbital of electrons. In the Cook theory, the strong force is seen as a magnetic effect created by the quarks. This makes sense! At the nucleus level, the lattice organization produces its own constraints in term of magnetic fields. Distorting the electromagnetic field by the proximity of nucleus within metals, or by temperature, or by an electromagnetic effect, it seems that electron’s orbital can penetrate within the range of a proton magnetic field, which then, looks like a neutron (charge equilibrium). Nothing prevents then to merge with the nucleus, but doing so, this creates a free electron, and the proton remains a proton.I believe strongly in this theory that I discovered 10 years ago, and I still do not understand why this is not more accepted and studied, since this theory do not violate any principle, and even allows to explain any official experiment.For me, this theory will become one day the reference, and the good news, is that it allows for both LENR and plasmas fusion.By the way, is it better on this forum to write in English or in French? It doesn’t change anything for me. 
Norman D. Cook & Andrea Rossi: On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the “E-Cat”
-
-
Just had a long discussion (again) with Stephan Pomp on his blog regarding Cold Fusion in general.
To sum up as I understand his view of CF (which goes for most of mainstream physicists probably):
Pomp: "There has to be a fact (replicable etc) to be explained".
So a heat burst "Beyond chemistry" in say one of 5 or 10 tests (only), is junk science and need no explanation, other than "must be artifact". A Strange view of science investigation in my opinion…Pomp: "CF is a number of artifacts that CF adherents try to press into "new science" and proudly argue with Kuhn. "
And this is his flat out opinion with evidently no knowledge of CF research history. - His opinion in the absence of evidence? which is normally called prejudice? Actually he will only accept evidence presented in "real journals", ref below…Pomp: "I claim you still need to use the scientific method and LENR seems to have failed for over two decades since I do not see articles in the major (real) journals"
And here is probably the core of the problem. Mainstream Physicists, like Pomp, wait for facts to be presented in "real journals", where (peer reviewers) historically have dismissed and refused CF papers flat out, since LENR don’t exists, can’t exist, has to be artifacts, need no investigation, evidently pathological science. A catch 22 situation for Science and the progress of science. Luckily, we have brave mainstream scientists that both investigate evidence outside the precious "real Journals", and participate closely in real investigations and yes become ‘believers’.So the main conclusion has to be: Don't hope to "science this into something". Make a commercial product and force science into a "crisis" and eventually a paradigm shift. Then, with (most of) the mainstream science community onboard, we may finally get closer to the right theory.
-
Interesting that of the first 20 articles only one has to do with any form of physics.
Display MoreSpiffing
Thanks Alain, I'll let others analyse it.
Norman D. Cook looks well published, 143 papers
Here are his google scholar citations
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=VJJTciMAAAAJ&hl=en
Seems he has fairly broad interests, he's been publishing regularly since the 1970s so has nothing to lose backing LENR as has to be close to retirement.
-
This theory is freely available at http://www.brillouinenergy.com…louinEnergyHypothesis.pdf as are several other documents in that directory.
