More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record

The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

www.nature.com

The number of retractions issued for research articles in 2023 has passed 10,000 — smashing annual records — as publishers struggle to clean up a slew of sham papers and peer-review fraud. Among large research-producing nations, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia and China have the highest retraction rates over the past two decades, a Nature analysis has found.

The bulk of 2023’s retractions were from journals owned by Hindawi, a London-based subsidiary of the publisher Wiley (see ‘A bumper year for retractions’). So far this year, Hindawi journals have pulled more than 8,000 articles, citing factors such as “concerns that the peer review process has been compromised” and “systematic manipulation of the publication and peer-review process”, after investigations prompted by internal editors and by research-integrity sleuths who raised questions about incoherent text and irrelevant references in thousands of papers.

4 minute read...

Here is some really old news. This describes the nightmare in 1991.

New York Times

Cold-Fusion Claim Is Faulted on Ethics as Well as Science

By William J. Broad

March 17, 1991

Cold-Fusion Claim Is Faulted on Ethics as Well as Science

The startling assertion by two chemists that they had achieved nuclear fusion in a test tube was based on "invented" data whose publication involved a serious breach of ethics and a violation of scientific protocol, prominent scientists have concluded.

The two researchers dismiss the charge, saying that their work on low-temperature, or cold, fusion was ethically sound and beyond reproach.

The cold-fusion debate erupted two years ago when the chemists, Dr. B. Stanley Pons and Dr. Martin Fleischmann, announced at the University of Utah that they had captured the secret of the sun's energy in a test tube at room temperature. The claim set off a race by thousands of scientists around the world to duplicate the experiment in the hope that they could develop a new source of safe cheap and virtually limitless energy. But the lack of independent proof eventually caused most of the cold-fusion efforts to collapse.

Original Data Are Assailed

Now, a new book by a respected scientist says the crucial evidence in the original claim was so skewed as to be "invented." The book, "Too Hot to Handle," to be published in May by Princeton University Press, is by Dr. Frank Close, a physicist with top posts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and the Rutherford Laboratory in Britain. Both are government laboratories that do wide-ranging research, including work on the atom.

In a telephone interview last week, Dr. Close said that publication of the Utah data with no hint of its dubious origin was a "serious error of judgment" that violated the scientific code of ethics. Other scientists with intimate knowledge of the affair have come to similar conclusions.

"I was convinced for a while it was absolute fraud," said Dr. Richard D. Petrasso, a fusion scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Now I've softened. They probably believed in what they were doing. But how they represented it was a clear violation of how science should be done."

Shift Called 'Inexcusable'

Dr. Michael H. Salamon, a physicist at the University of Utah who had close contact with the researchers, said that the data measured in the laboratory were different from those published in the original scientific paper, which was a pivotal piece of evidence for the claim of cold fusion. "Scientifically, it's inexcusable not to have explained how the shift occurred" in the data, Dr. Salamon said.

But Dr. Fleischmann said he strongly disagreed. In a telephone interview from his home in Britain, he denied any impropriety and said the data presented were perfectly legitimate for a first paper.

"We didn't do anything wrong," he said. "It was a preliminary note that didn't contain details." But Dr. Fleischmann conceded that he now considers the disputed data "rubbish," although he still believes in cold fusion.

The whereabout of Dr. Pons are not publicly known and attempts to obtain a response through his lawyer were unsuccessful. His lawyer said the book's assertions were unfounded. Tremendous Hope Is Raised

Nuclear fusion is the force that powers the sun, the stars and hydrogen bombs, fusing atoms rather than breaking them apart as nuclear reactors do in creating energy. The fusion process usually requires heat of many millions of degrees to get under way.

The possibility that this might change was raised on March 23, 1989, when Dr. Pons, chairman of the chemistry department at the University of Utah, and Dr. Fleischmann of Southampton University in England, a visiting researcher at Utah, announced in Salt Lake City that they had achieved fusion at room temperature in a tabletop device.

But behind-the-scenes activity regarding the experiment is coming to light that shows crucial evidence in the original publication had been altered.

All types of nuclear fusion produce a variety of byproducts, including heat, neutrons and gamma rays. Heat is ambiguous as proof of a nuclear reaction, since chemical devices like batteries also produce heat. A critical "signature" of fusion is considered to be neutrons of a particular energy, as well as the gamma rays produced when the speeding neutrons strike surrounding material.

Data Changes Along the Way

The Utah researchers published a scientific paper showing a gamma-ray reading at an energy level that was exactly right if the process was indeed fusion, and the finding was interpreted by many scientists as strong backing for their assertion. This evidence was indeed vital, since there was no reading of neutron energy. But in fact, the actual gamma-ray reading was significantly different from what appeared in print.

The man who made the original gamma-ray measurement was Robert J. Hoffman, a radiation safety officer at the university, who in March 1989 was called into the cold-fusion laboratory. According to the new book, he found gamma rays with an energy of about 2.5 million electron-volts, or MeV, which traced out a clear peak on the screen of his detector.

In an interview, Mr. Hoffman said the cold-fusion researchers used the data "any way they liked" without consulting him. Then, months later, he said, he found the measuring instrument to be faulty.

"With the peak in question, I do not know to this day in all good conscience whether it was or wasn't an artifact," he said, referring to the possibility of experimental error.

On March 24, 1989, the day after the Utah news conference at which the discovery was announced, Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann sent a paper to the British journal Nature that included the 2.5 MeV figure, according to the new book. That paper was later withdrawn, its data never made public.

On March 28, Dr. Fleischmann, presented the 2.5 MeV figure to a science group at Harwell, a top nuclear laboratory in Britain, according to the new book. "He was told that 2.5 MeV is the wrong place for a gamma ray coming from neutron capture," the book says. By his next public talk, in Geneva on March 31, 1989, Dr. Fleischmann said the crucial piece of data was at 2.2 MeV, the magic number that indicated to all experts the occurrence of a fusion reaction. 'It Was the Wrong Energy'

A data adjustment was also under way in Salt Lake City. On March 29, Dr. Salamon of the university's physics department and two other physicists met with Dr. Pons. They went over a scientific paper in manuscript form that displayed the gamma peak at 2.5 MeV, as it had been measured.

"We said it was the wrong energy," Dr. Salamon recalled in an interview. "Pons said, 'Yes, yes, we know it's 2.2 MeV.' But he glossed over the question of how he knew that. He didn't say it was a recalibration. He said we know it's 2.2."

The paper that Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann eventually published, which appeared in 1989 in The Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, showed a peak for the telltale gamma rays at 2.2 MeV, strongly suggesting that a new form of nuclear fusion had been discovered in Salt Lake City.

A Calculational Change

In the interview, Dr. Fleischmann defended his actions and those of his colleague, saying the measured data had simply undergone a calculational change. He could not remember, he said, who had done the calculation or when. "You always calculate," he said. "When you measure, you have to convert it into an energy, you have to calibrate and calculate. In the preliminary note, you cannot explain all that."

But other scientists say there was an ethical obligation to show greater candor to the readers of the original paper, especially given the magnitude of the cold-fusion claims.

In his book, Dr. Close says that if the pair had been more forthcoming, "the excitement over test-tube fusion would probably have died within a few days."

From Top of Their World

To a Scientific Ostracism

By WILLIAM J. BROAD

In two years, the would-be co-discoverers or cold fusion have gone from scientific stars at the University of Utah to outcasts estranged from the birthplace of their discovery.

When the startling announcement of cold fusion was made on March 23, 1989, Dr. B. Stanley Pons was chairman of the chemistry department at the University of Utah With a bright career ahead of him. Now his career is in turmoil. In January he gave up his tenured post at Utah for a research professorship, which is up for renewal in July 1992. University spokesmen in Salt Lake City say he spends little time on campus.

"I don't know where he is and I don’t know if anyone on campus knows," said one spokesman. Jim Bapls. "The rumor is that he's in France.''

Dr. Pons, 46 years old, is also at odds With the National Cold Fusion Institute, a nonprofit corporation founded in Salt Lake City by the University of Utah In 1989 with $4.5 million from the Utah State Legislature.

Early this month, Dr. Fritz G. Will, director of the institute resigned from its board, saying Dr. Pons and his cold-fusion partner, Dr. Martin Fleischmann, were providing insufficient data for a critical review of their research.

Institute on “Last Legs”

The problem is a continuing one. Last October Dr. Pons failed to appear before a state review committee trying to examine his cold-fusion work, having gone abroad without leaving a forwarding address. The state group was forced to reconvene at a later date, after Dr. Pons had been tracked down and encouraged to appear to help account for how the state’s money was being spent.

Mr. Bapis said the institute "is on its last legs" and unlikely to get new financing from the state.

Dr. Fleischmann, 63, retired from teaching at the University of Southampton in England in 1983 and was given an honorary professorship, capping a distinguished career ln which he served as president or the International Society of Electrochemistry and was a Fellow or the Royal Society, the top honorary society for British scientists. He then devoted his time to theories and research.

From the start, Dr. Fleischmann was the dominant member of the team, the relationship between himself and Dr. Pons being that of master and student. Dr. Fleischmann was a visiting researcher at the University of Utah at the time of the experiment and still maintains a connection with the university.

Today, although his reputation has been battered and bruised, he remains defiantly proud of his cold-fusion work and angry over the criticism.

Critics, Dr. Fleischmann said from his home In England, "are trying to create a furor and not look at the science," adding, "It's the science that's important.”

He noted that a large international meeting of cold-fusion researchers is to be held at Lake Como in Italy this month on the second anniversary of the discovery. "I'll go there," he said.

Bob Greenyer recent Taiwan Silicon Valley Presentation called Working with nature

possible nuclear reaction mechanism in water.

How Taiwan became a Tech Giant.

COP28 Fusion: Discourse in Nuclear Energy?

Explore the pivotal discussions at COP28 on fusion power, highlighting the new era of fusion energy development and its global impact.

Read More

As many of you may know with the generous help of Anthropocene Institute we are rebuilding the ISCMNS website. The new site should be online early in the New Year. One of the features of the new site will be that it allows a single portal for the payment of membership and conference fees etc. The good news is that we have decided to delay charging membership until April 1st 2024, but which time we will have a proper programme in place. More good news is that using the new 'Squarespace' web platform means they your membership will run for 12 months from whenever you join, the system makes this easy.

You can of course join now free of charge.until April.

https://iscmns.org/membership

Best Wishes. Alan Smith.
CEO/Sec. International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. (ISCMNS)
Research Director. Net Zero Scientific Ltd. +447944847870.

Quote

Dear Colleague, A present from Santilli-Claus.

Quote

You may be interested in the following free collection of 26 Open

Access papers by various authors

for your virtual library that we prepared following a number of

requests:

HADRONIC MATHEMATICS,

MECHANICS AND CHEMISTRY

HTTPS://WWW.SANTILLI-FOUNDATION.ORG/DOCS/HMMC.PDF

Collection of OA papers Published by the

American Journal of Modern Physics

Volume 4, Issue 5-1, 2015, Part 1: Hadronic Mathematics

Volume 5, Issue 2-1, 2016, Part 2: Hadronic Mechanics

Volume 6, Issue 4-1, 2017, Part 3: Hadronic Chemistry

The R. M. Santilli Foundation

Website: http://santilli-foundation-org [1]

Email: trustee(at)santilli-foundation(dot)org

This collection is solely available in free pdf access without any

hard copy.

Our mailings solely release scientific information.

Debates are conducted in the website www.eprdebates.org [2].

TO UNSUBSCRIBE OR SUBSCRIBE

Please send the request to Pamela at admin(at)eprdebates(dot)org

Links:

------

[1] http://santilli-foundation-org/

[2] http://www.eprdebates.org/

Display More

Italian Researcher Mr. Daniele Gozzi has shared the following link to David Nygren and I think is a great resource to keep at hand that includes some really interesting material many of us may be completely unaware of its existence.

la fusione fredda | Museo di Chimica "Primo Levi"

I also take the opportunity to welcome dago77 to the forum.

The ISCMNS is conducting an archival project to preserve historically relevant video and audio recordings related to the field of CMNS and the discovery of the Fleischmann-Pons Effect. As part of this effort, we are collecting VHS tapes and digitizing them. These files will be preserved safely in long-term storage using cloud storage services and uploaded to YouTube to make them available to the community at large.

Today we are announcing the release of the first group of videos to come out of this project.

Many of the VHS tapes are newscasts by the mainstream media (CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.) both from the time of the announcement and periodically in the years since. Another large group comes from International Conferences on Cold Fusion (ICCFs) and other conferences, such as the CMNS sessions at the American Chemical Society and American Physical Society. This group includes the International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen/Deuterium Loaded Metals

conferences organized by Bill Collis, co-founder of the ISCMNS.

Many other tapes in various categories have also been obtained. They include, in particular, past interviews with Martin Fleischmann, Stan Pons, and various other prominent members in the CMNS field.

Gratitude is expressed to Dr. Melvin Miles and Dr. Tom Passell for making their VHS tape collections available to us. The legacy tapes project is being conducted jointly by Thomas Grimshaw and Rob Christian in their respective roles as ISCMNS archivist and media specialist. Seamus Lonergan and Diadon Acs are also contributing to this project by authoring our video/audio summaries.

In addition to the legacy media, Rob Christian is also leading an initiative to film all new interviews with prominent members of the LENR field, starting with Dr. Edmund Storms and Dr. Melvin Miles. These interviews will also be released to the new ISCMNS YouTube channel:

Something maybe of interest by French CEA

Nos matériaux ! | Hanetec

It is a nanostructrure produced by plasma liquid interaction, with a huge surface to mass ratio...
Many transitions metal are usable, like platinum, palladium, and alloys too.

Experts will understand better than me.
Maybe it can be tested, but I suspect that some parameters may have to be changed, because it seems too much reactive for LENR...

I've seen this company announce

HB11 Energy | new Laser Hydrogen-Boron fusion energy | Australia

HB11 Energy develops Laser Hydrogen Boron-11 fusion to provide a new source of unlimited, clean, safe and reliable energy. Our mission is to generate…

hb11.energy

It features Professor Heinrich Hora among many.

Research Team

The HB11 Energy Research Team is joined by collaborators from Australia, USA, Europe and Asia. EXECUTIVE SCIENCE TEAM AND SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD PROF.…

hb11.energy

I know him for the Hora-Miley theory,
https://newenergytimes.com/v2/…ies/HoraMileyTheory.shtml
and he seems to be among the first to have worked on LENR.

It seems to be Laser induces 11-Boron/1-H LENR.

Maybe a thread could be created to exchange about this company.

The fifth international workshop on “State of the Art in Nuclear Cluster Physics” (SOTANCP5) will be held in Hvar, during June 10-14, 2024. This is the fifth workshop in the series that started in Strasbourg in 2008 and continued in Brussels in 2010, Yokohama in 2014, and then Galveston in 2018. The conference is jointly organized by the Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb and Ruđer Bošković Institute.

cluster physics workshop...pdf

Email: [email protected]

Message: The international Journal of Physics and Optics Sciences has published my article "Clean Energy Inventions". Link is

https://www.onlinescientificresearch.com/articles/clean-energy-inventions.pdf

The Gallery of Clean Energy Inventions is linked in https://app.box.com/v/cleanenergyexhibit and padrak.com/vesperman. The exhibit displays profiles of 31 Larger Generators, 36 Smaller Generators, 30 Advanced Self-Powered Electric Vehicle Innovations, 29 Radioactivity Neutralization Methods, 30 Space Travel Innovations, 25 Technical Solutions to Water Shortages, and a Torsion Field School Network. Also displayed are 50 movie posters and 80 Hubble Space Telescope images.

It is difficult to stimulate enthusiasm to support development of new energy technologies that people have never heard of.

I advocate diverting to clean energy inventions .1% of the billions spent on nuclear power plants, solar farms, geothermal, hydropower, wind turbines and fossil fuel subsidies. Is one-tenth of 1% really too much to ask for?

Regarding our field, maybe my best here:

Latest theory paper by Edmund Storms on his Site:

A New Understanding of Cold Fusion

A New Understanding of Cold Fusion – The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

Quote from Edmund Storms

A decades-long study into the mechanisms of cold fusion incorporating experimental work and the latest theoretical models, A New Understanding of Cold Fusion has formed.

From the paper:

This paper attempts to answer three questions. First, is cold fusion real? Second, what do the behaviors imply about the reaction process? And third, can a logically consistent mechanism be found to explain the observed behavior without violating the Laws of Science? The answers suggest a new kind of electron interaction is possible. From A New Understanding of Cold Fusion [.pdf] by Edmund Storms

(I did not see it here yet, tell me if it's duplicate)

From ECat World.

Paper: “”Anomalous heat generation that cannot be explained by known chemical reactions produced by nano-structured multilayer metal composites and hydrogen gas” (Iwamura, et. al) –

It is 5 to 12 o'clock https://edition.cnn.com/2024/0…eather-climate/index.html

We here urgently need a high COP CF reaction. But as long as people follow the old guard we only can recommend that north Europe buys some very warms cloths and may be UK has to rebuild all, houses..

WHAT'S FUELLING THE COMMERCIAL FUSION HYPE?

Article from: - https://thebulletin.org/2024/0…rRisk_FusionHype_02202024

Recent White House and Energy Department pronouncements on speeding up the “commercialization” of fusion energy are so over the top as to make you wonder about the scientific competence in the upper reaches of the government.

In April 2022, the White House launched what it called a “bold decadal vision” for a 10-year program to “accelerate the realization of commercial fusion energy.” The “bold” part is the proposal, in questionable analogy with high-speed computing, to do in parallel all the development steps that are typically done sequentially to bring a new technology to the market. According to the White House, this parallel processing would include: technology development, preparing a regulatory system (including rules for fusion reactor exports), securing the supply chain, identifying high-value markets, training a diverse workforce, and gaining public support, all “to support the rapid scale-up of fusion energy facilities.”

The special attraction of fusion is of course that it offers a potential source of abundant carbon-free energy that does not generate radioactive nuclear waste. But just because it would be nice if controlled fusion could work doesn’t mean it’s on the verge of doing so. The hard truth is that scientists and engineers don’t even know yet whether controlled fusion can be achieved to make useful work, at least anywhere outside the sun (and other stars, of course).

A historical perspective is useful to understand where the hype about commercial fusion is coming from.

We have known about fusion powering the sun since Hans Bethe explained it in 1939. This was also almost exactly when Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann discovered uranium fission (and Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch explained it). Then in 1942, Enrico Fermi and a small number of co-workers demonstrated a controlled fission chain reaction in a squash court at the University of Chicago. Fermi spent about $50 million in today’s dollars on building his 20-foot-tall atomic pile.

More than 80 years later, the corresponding control-of-fusion principle has yet to be demonstrated experimentally and the US government already made $35 billion in cumulative fusion expenditure—with probably a comparable investment abroad—without yet knowing what works.

The White House’s approach to attain success appears based on the idea that enthusiasm and coordination of all diverse stakeholders backed up with enough money can solve a so-far-unsolved scientific problem. Administration spokespersons mention projects that were successfully accelerated in this way, like the 1969 trip to the moon. Sure, this was indeed a hugely successful monumental project at the time, but no one involved doubted it was possible to do. All the necessary component technologies, like rockets and communications, were in hand on a smaller scale. In the case of fusion power reactors, no one is yet sure what they would look like, let alone if they will turn out to be possible and practicable.

RELATED:

COP28 and the nuclear energy numbers racket

The main research track today in fusion energy is “magnetic confinement”—configuring magnetic fields to keep in place a plasma of thermonuclear fuel 10 times hotter than the sun’s core within a donut-shaped magnetic “bottle.” Dozens of such machines—known as “tokamaks,” a Russian-language transliteration for toroidal chamber with axial magnetic field—have been built around the world since the 1950s, but none got close to demonstrating a net energy gain. Controlled fusion, it turns out, is an extremely difficult problem. To solve it, fusion experts have concluded the key is to have a large enough facility.

The world’s largest experimental fusion machine—ITER (initially the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, also meaning “the way” in Latin)—is nearing completion in France. It is a highly complex scientific and engineering project. ITER publicity describes the building housing the reactor as “slightly taller than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris,” and that the building foundation will support some 400,000 metric tons—“more than the weight of New York’s Empire State Building.” Started in 2006, ITER is a 35-country megaproject that was supposed to be completed in 2016 at a cost of $6 billion. The reactor is currently projected to start up in 2025, but even that appears to be an optimistic date, as is the total budget estimate of about $22 billion.

The initial design objective is to produce a fusion plasma with thermal power 10 times greater than the injected thermal power. Even if successful, this net power output would not yet be the fusion equivalent of Fermi’s 1942 experimental nuclear pile, which proved the controlled fission concept. Nor would ITER’s more ambitious subsequent goal of maintaining this plasma for eight minutes. To get to proof of principle would likely take another step or an upgrading of ITER.

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s weapons laboratory pursued another approach of “internal confinement,” to create a fusion reaction at its National Ignition Facility (NIF) and claimed it could have power application. NIF uses light pulses from a concentric battery of powerful lasers to heat a small target containing a tiny bead of frozen thermonuclear fuel. This is, in effect, a miniature (secondary) thermonuclear bomb, with the lasers playing the role of the triggering fission reactions (primary). The light heats the container material sufficiently to ablate and swiftly compress the fuel to the point of detonation, which lasts some billionths of a second. The experiment was directed primarily at developing a useful diagnostic tool for weapons research. In power application, you would have to repeat the explosions at an extraordinarily fast rate, which is a tall order.

Despite its lack of promise for civilian use, the Energy Department and the White House have used the Livermore controlled fusion experiment results to boost the effort to harness fusion power for civilian purposes. In December 2022, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced with great fanfare that a laser pulse ignited a fusion reaction that produced more energy than was supplied by the light beams: “This milestone moves us one significant step closer to the possibility of zero carbon abundant energy powering our society … a huge step forward to the president’s goal of achieving commercial fusion within a decade.” (Update: In less than nine years from now.)

RELATED:

The nuclear year in review: A renewed interest in nuclear weapons—for and against

In her energy balance, however, the energy secretary forgot to account for the energy it took to create the laser beams. This energy input, when added, drastically reverses her conclusion, with the fusion output then amounting to only about one percent of the input. This is not disqualifying from a scientific point of view, but it obviously is in a power generating application. Still, this hasn’t stopped the Energy Department from including Livermore’s fusion ignition experiment in a promotional video on the “7 moments that changed nuclear energy history.” The clip claims “[t]he Lab was the first to produce more energy from a fusion reaction than was used to start the process,” again forgetting the energy it took to power the lasers.

Most people in the field still pin their hopes on the international ITER project for advancing the possibility of fusion power. One thing we know already is that, if a magnetic confinement fusion power reactor ever works, it will be huge and expensive. This contrasts with current thinking in energy policy that inclines to a more decentralized electrical system powered by more affordable and flexible generators. With fusion power being so difficult to demonstrate—even in principle—it will likely suffer a much longer time between proof of principle, if we ever get there, and significant commercial application. So, forget the Energy Department’s parallel processing path promise.

A recent White House announcement on fusion had a link to an Atlantic Council discussion on fusion. In it, former Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz, a physicist, said he drew confidence about the prospects of fusion power from knowing that $5 billion of private capital has been invested. This showed him that “somebody must think this has got a good chance of working.” At the same time, if true, the funders who committed the $5 billion were surely drawing confidence from the fusion physicists’ enthusiastic claims. This circular reasoning does make one wonder.

It’s not surprising that the fusion research community at the Energy Department is gushing with enthusiasm for commercialization of fusion and the near-term prospect of building pilot plants and revolutionizing electricity generation. But as with any big-bet investment, some perspective about the possibilities and risks involved is in order. Where is the US government agency that will provide such a perspective?

Bob Greyer:

Method for Obtaining Energy - Anatoly Fedorovich Kladov

Granted patent RU2054604C1 - 2nd July 1993

Bob Greenyer

Feb 23

Hi, my name is Bob Greenyer and welcome to RemoteView.ICU

The following is my curated attempt at machine assisted translation of the awarded patent of Anatoly Kladov, using several sources, including those available on Russian and European patent servers and the original part typed and part hand written patent document. In all cases there were problems with the official sources, however, by combining them and re-constructing and verifying the key equations, I believe this is a workable document that gets across the bulk of the original intent of the patent.

If you want to refer to the original documents to check, they are available from my blog article “ULTR - Method for Obtaining Energy” alongside a discussion of this document. Also, you will find my proposed possible reactions that could account for:

the extra COP produced during addition of 5% aluminosilicate suspension,

the production of Beta/Gamma radiation following the addition of ‘an amount of CO2’ and

the production of neutrons, following the addition of LiCl.

These are my current best proposals to explain the phenomena observed based on my experience, I welcome any other suggestions. So, onto the patent

......

Full Content:

Method for Obtaining Energy - Anatoly Fedorovich Kladov

Granted patent RU2054604C1 - 2nd July 1993

remoteview.substack.com