The Playground - No more Covid Games Please.

  • No one has had any long lasting effects from the mRNA vaccine. Not one person. It is the safest vaccine ever developed

    Believe it or not...References please... CDC?

    ":the safest vaccine ever developed"


    CDC Says Waiting 8 Weeks Between COVID-19 Vaccines May Lower Myocarditis Risk for Some
    Experts say the new guidelines could prevent a rare complication.

  • Poetry.

    After a good nights sleep, where whispering ancient words in an unspoken language touches my soul,

    and begin its journey to my fingers; I sit and wait for inspiration. Then suddenly,

    the flow comes. A tide of ideas that twists my ancestors lives with what has reached my eyes

    and ears throughout the decades. I see myself as a child, I feel my angst when fighting for

    my own sanity at rough times, feel the times when love was wagging me to sleep. But also I

    feel the fear of many lives now, I feel the determination to never give up. Souls that are

    hardening in the night. Freezing soldiers dreaming of home, the loved. I cry. Then the pencil

    starts it's dance and the magic of life shows itself.

  • Duration of Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection and Associated Risk of Reinfection Assessed with Real-World Data

    Duration of Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection and Associated Risk of Reinfection Assessed with Real-World Data
    Importance Better understanding of the protective duration of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against reinfection is needed. Objective Primary: To assess the…


    Importance Better understanding of the protective duration of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against reinfection is needed.

    Objective Primary: To assess the durability of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among initially unvaccinated individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary: Evaluate the crude SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rate and associated characteristics.

    Design and Setting Retrospective observational study of HealthVerity data among 144,678,382 individuals, during the pandemic era through April 2021.

    Participants Individuals studied had SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic or antibody index test results from February 29 through December 9, 2020, with ≥365 days of pre-index continuous closed medical enrollment, claims, or electronic health record activity.

    Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Rates of reinfection among index-positive individuals were compared to rates of infection among index-negative individuals. Factors associated with reinfection were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. For both objectives, the outcome was a subsequent positive molecular diagnostic test result.

    Results Among 22,786,982 individuals with index SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test data (2,023,341 index positive), the crude rate of reinfection during follow-up was significantly lower (9.89/1,000-person years) than that of primary infection (78.39/1,000 person years). Consistent with prior findings, the risk of reinfection among index-positive individuals was 87% lower than the risk of infection among index-negative individuals (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.13, 0.13). The cumulative incidence of reinfection among index-positive individuals and infection among index-negative individuals was 0.85% (95% CI: 0.82%, 0.88%) and 6.2% (95% CI: 6.1%, 6.3%), respectively, over follow-up of 375 days. The duration of protection against reinfection was stable over the median 5 months and up to 1-year follow-up interval. Factors associated with an increased reinfection risk included older age, comorbid immunologic conditions, and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers had a decreased reinfection risk.

    Conclusions and Relevance This large US population-based study demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is uncommon among individuals with laboratory evidence of a previous infection. Protection from SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is stable up to one year. Reinfection risk was primarily associated with age 85+ years, comorbid immunologic conditions and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers demonstrated a decreased reinfection risk. These findings suggest that infection induced immunity is durable for variants circulating prior to Delta.

    Question How long does prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provide protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection?

    Finding Among >22 million individuals tested February 2020 through April 2021, the relative risk of reinfection among those with prior infection was 87% lower than the risk of infection among individuals without prior infection. This protection was durable for up to a year. Factors associated with increased likelihood of reinfection included older age (85+ years), comorbid immunologic conditions, and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers had lower risk.

    Meaning Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provides a durable, high relative degree of protection against reinfection.

  • Most of the arguments on Covid-19 are moot. You need to consider that the human body is not like a computer where fixing a problem can be replicated on all other computers with predictable results. (Yes, I have an engineering background.)

    The human body is not just an organism defined/grown from a preset DNA template. We are the sum of that along with every virus currently in our system, the bacteria in our gut/body, the history of what we eat, the environment, the list just goes on.

    So, the expectation that anyone can definitively say that a protocol works for everyone is simply not realistic. And saying that a protocol causes harm is also not possible since it is impossible to account for all the other factors involved.

  • So, the expectation that anyone can definitively say that a protocol works for everyone is simply not realistic.

    Oh, horseshit. Vaccines work for nearly everyone, except immunocompromised people. How do you think we wiped out smallpox and polio? How could that have been done if vaccines did not work for everyone? Why is that nearly everyone who has died of COVID since the vaccines began was not vaccinated? Do you think that was a coincidence? What you say is ridiculous.

  • There are no effective treatments. Ivermectin does nothing. Thousands of people are dying every day in the U.S. alone. All of them are unvaccinated.

    I believe you work like an old gramophone disk with a rupture. You just produce endless nonsensical noise. May be once in your live you could try to read the UK Covid report that now with omicron shows 3x (rate data! not absolute) more vaccinated in hospital than unvaxx..

    But USA is an Oligarch Disney land like Russia. I see absolute no difference between America and Russia. USA kills people with illegal drugs/ chemo therapies and Russland uses weapons to kill innocent people.

    The USA still did not block Putins money in Delaware...and certainly will not block Pfizers for making money with a non working/deadly drug.

  • More details of "illegal" gen research of the lovely Mr.. Gates...http://genedrivefiles.synbiowa…2/01/gates_foundation_pr/

    Also some UK friends got money::Those who coordinated and were closely involved with the Emerging Ag influence operation included a Gates Foundation senior official 10 and at least three members of an appointed UN expert committee linked to the process 11, the AHTEG (Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group) on Synthetic Biology. Two who are also AHTEG members, Dr. Todd Kuiken of North Carolina State University and Professor Paul Freemont of Imperial College London, represent t institutions that receive at least a combined $100 million dollars in U.S. military and philanthropic funds expressly to develop and test gene drive systems.

    This is a part of the oligarchs game. Some of the involved countries (Brazil...) did support Russia in the UNO against Ukraine. Just to understand who is connected with who...There was an Oligarch meeting in Moscow the day before the Ukraine killing started. So plenty of time to secure the money...For sure Biden was involved..and his 8| - mafia finance minister.

    Brazil still is empty space. You can produce farm land out of nothing and get free slaves for the production. Ideal for Oligarch with no scruple.

  • I believe you work like an old gramophone disk with a rupture. You just produce endless nonsensical noise.

    Not me. You are saying that the CDC and every other public health agency, and every hospital, and just about every doctor on earth is producing endless nonsensical noise. You are saying that you know better than all those people. You are wrong.

  • Description of document:

    United States Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) records concerning Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) 2008-2010

    GovernmentAttic GovTribe link

    Requested date: 04-August-2016

    Release date: 11-May-2017

    Posted date: 15-November-2021

    Source of document: Freedom of Information Act Request

    Commander, INSCOM


    2600 Ernie Pyle St.

    Fort Meade, MD 20755-5995

    Preferred during COVID-19 pandemic:

    Email: [email protected]

    National Ground Intelligence Center


    Date of Publication: 2012-01-09

    {U) Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions

    (U) In 1989, two scientists working in the United States reported that they had produced cold fusion-a nuclear fusion reaction that is not induced by fission explosions or the use of extremely powerful magnetic fields. When other scientists could not immediately replicate the results, the original work was labeled "bad science" and consigned to the trash bin by the scientific community. A few researchers, however, continued to work the area and a few positive observations have been made. The topic is still controversial-the term "cold fusion" has been replaced by low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR or, less commonly, chemical-assisted nuclear reaction [CANRJ)--but it has gained enough respectability that, in 2007, the American Chemical Society sponsored a symposium on LENR. If LENR technology comes about, it could be used as an alternate power source for many areas of civil and military use.

    U) Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions

    (U) Over 20 years ago, two electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, claimed that they had produced 0-0 nuclear fusion, in one of their electrochemical cells. Their haste to announce that they had achieved room-temperature fusion, along with the difficulty in reproducing their experiments. led to rebuke within the scientific community and planted a stigma on cold fusion and any related research. However, a small community of scientists continued to pursue related research and reported phenomena such as excess heat production, helium and tritium production, and transmutation. These reported effects were triggered by various stimuli, such as electric and magnetic fields and lasers, and some scientists claim the results could be reproducible if certain conditions were met. To date, no one has published a theory widely accepted by the broader scientific community that explains all of the observed phenomena. Many researchers claim that recent LENR experiments have generated excess heat and others have generated nuclear particles (alphas and neutrons),2 tritium.J helium.1 low-energy gammas, and transmutation. In some instances, excess heat was reported to be 30 to 40 times input energy.

    (U) Italian LENR Development

    (U) Development of the E-Cat Device

    (U) In January 2011, inventor Andrea Rossi, together with Dr. Sergio Focardi, professor emeritus ol the University or Bologna, announced that they have developed a device that uses LENR to produce excess heat. The name of the device is E-cat. meaning energy catalyzer (see two figures below). Later in the year, Rossi claimed that he would make the device available for commercial use by the end of 2011. Notably, this device has yet to become commercially available, and Rossi currently states that these devices will be available for commercial purchase in early 2012 (apparently, one can preorder a 1 MW plant from the E-cat website today and take delivery in 3 months) and for home use starting in 2013.

    (U) Reported Operation of the E-Cat Device

    (U) Rossi claims that his "black-box" E-cat device works when a hydrogen atom penetrates a nickel atom and transforms it to copper. In one experiment, the reaction between the hydrogen atoms and nickel used 300 watts of input power. In this reaction, the measured output of the device was continual output power of 2.3 to 2.6 kW.12 Rossi estimated the power output by measuring the amount or steam produced from the water in the device. In a report from the Department of Energy, the claim was a 1.5 kWh output with a 0.4 kWh input using a nickel-copper alloy matrix as a deuterium storage medium.

    (U) In a March 2010 paper. Rossi claimed that, in a separate experiment, his device produced 21.229% excess heat, equating to 213 times more energy generation than was input to the E-cat. The scientific community continues to question the method Rossi used to take the measurement, 15 including the following:

    • (U) The group that tested the device did not perform a convincing calorimetry test on the device, possibly leading to an incorrect measurement.

    • (U) The group used an unsuitable device to measure the steam qualify, which calls into question the validity or the measurement.

    • (U) The group did not check the water output correctly and could have been measuring the wrong output or the device.

    (U) Since March 2010, Rossi has reduced the amount of energy that he claims is generated by the E-cat device. In the summer of 2011, Rossi asserted that his device had a six-times output-to-input energy generation. Reporting from November 2011 states that Rossi is now claiming less than six.

    (U) Power Generation With E-Cat Devices

    (U) A Greek company, Defkalion Green Technologies, was planning to market lhe E-cat machines. according to a press conference held on 23 June 2011. Rossi planned to deliver a final system in October 2011 to Defkalion. It would have included 330 E-cat machines, which are purportedly capable of delivering 1MW power (see figure below). However, on 4 August 2011. a press report stated that Rossi and Defkalion terminated their licensing agreement. Rossi stated that this breakup in partnership was a result of financial matters. Instead of Greece, the United States will house the 1 MW plant. This latest report has caused more people within the scientific community to question the validity of Rossi's claims.

    (U) Worldwide, researchers are skeptical of Rossi's claims. However, some scientists from the United States, Sweden, and other countries have attempted to measure radiation and emanations from the E-cat,

    and two Swedish scientists have obtained samples of some of the materials used in the device. Some have speculated that Rossi copied previously patented technologies, but others believe that he may have developed a new low-energy nuclear reactor. Until detailed measurements and/or exploitation of his device are complete, determining whether Rossi's device performs as stated is impossible.

    (U) Conclusions

    (U) Rossi allowed only limited access to experiments. Additionally, the testing was poorly conducted.

    • (U) Rossi's credentials include questionable business practices and past cases of fraud.

    • (U) Rossi continues to delay device shipment without explanation.

    (U) Consideration of Altemallve Analyses and Contrary Evidence

    (U) This article is about whether the E-cat device works as claimed or does not. There is a LENR community of interest that believes and promotes the claims and concepts In LENR and has a large body of pro-LENR literature available on the Internet.

    (U) Although unlikely, it is possible that Rossi actually developed (or made significant progress in developing) a LENR device. Nuclear reactions are known to produce 10 million times more energy output than nonnuclear chemical reaclions. The basic process of useable energy is governed by thermodynamics, which limits the output end efficiency of any system that heats a fluid for heat-transfer purposes. We assess with moderate confidence that harnessing energy release from LENR would likely have a low to moderate impact on energy management and production, worldwide, and is unlikely to be scalable in thermodynamic performance to a substantial process.

    (U) Intelligence Gaps

    • (U) Does the E-cat device perform as claimed?

    • (U) If so, how does it operate?

    • (U) Does it involve LENR?


    (U) Confidence in Assessments.

    Our assessments and estimates are supported by information that

    varies in scope, quality, and sourcing. Consequently, we ascribe high, moderate, or low levels of confidence to our assessments as follows: High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A "high conlidence" judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still risk being inaccurate. Moderate Confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on information that is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence. Low confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on information that is of questionable credibility and/or plausibility, that may be too fragmented or poorly corroborated to support solid analytic inferences or that relies on sources that present significant concerns or problems.

    Date of Publication: 2010-07-22

    U) Review of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions

    (U) Purpose

    (U) This initiative product assesses recent efforts in low-energy-nuclear-reaction (LENR) research. The purpose of this product is to answer three basic questions:

    • (U) Is LENR or cold fusion a threat to U.S. national security?

    • (U) Will any foreign countries or organizations gain a strategic advantage over the United States in using LENR, or will they have a capability the United States will not have?

    • (U) Will LENR/cold fusion contribute in a significant way to the energy-production issues facing the world?

    (U) Despite being surrounded by controversy and derided by many physicists, LENR research has nonetheless continued and has recently seen an increase in foreign activity and a revival in the popular media. Although plagued by intermittent and unconfirmed results, charges of "pseudo-science, experimental incompetence, and personality conflicts, LENR research has continued by focusing on refining experiments and on expanding the search for a scientific explanation of the experimental results. The controversy surrounding the legitimacy of claims by researchers to have initiated nuclear reactions with energies significantly below those needed to overcome the nuclear Coulomb barrier continues; nevertheless. some insights into the possibilities of LENR have raised speculation that these processes may not be as "forbidden" as opponents initially claimed.

    (U) This product addresses topics within production requirements C513-95-0030 (Electric Gun Technology) and C572-03-0001/2 (DEW Weapons Developments-Foreign), and it supports C590·96-0014.

    (U) Key Points

    • (U) NGIC finds that the evidence for anomalous heat production in electrolysis cells is credible because of the large number of repeated experiments; however, the source of this anomalous behavior has not been established, and there is no reasonable expectation that this process can result in significant applications as an energy source of any kind. Any serendipitous applications await the correct identification of the physics and chemistry involved. (High Confidence)

    (U) In the United States, LENR is still outside the mainstream of scientific research in that little, if any, is funded through traditional baslc-research funding agencies. In other countries, LENR has met with much less hostility, although it remains at a relatively low--level of activity and acceptance. In spite of these conditions, much progress has been reported over the past decade in both the Uniled States and overseas. High Confidence

    (U) A small but real possibility exists that fusion is taking place as evidenced by production of excess heat and the signature of nuclear ash. The evidence is illustrative but inconclusive. (High Confidence)

    • (U) No accepted theoretical models for the process exist, and absent a theory, experiments tend to be phenomenological in design and purpose. LENR represents a convergence of surface physics, chemistry, nuclear physics, and nanomaterial engineering, and this diversity likely helps explain the lack of a unified theory. (High Confidence)

    • {U) Strong evidence indicates that the inability to replicate results on demand may be related to the source of the lattice material (often palladium), and perhaps to trace impurities in the crystal. (Medium Confidence)

    • (U) Although the heat or power-producing effects of LENRs are interesting from a scientific perspective, none of the available evidence indicates that these effects can be scaled lo either a useable personal or commercial energy source. {High Confidence)

    (U) Source Summary Statement

    (U) This LENR assessment is based on a review of the open-source scientific literature for technical validity. This assessment is needed before Intelligence Community-collection assets are committed. The majority of the reports on advances in LENR are found in LENR specific conferences (e.g .. the International Conference on Cold Fusion series of which there have been more than a dozen), web postings, private correspondence, and the popular press. Because LENR has not fully entered the mainstream of scientific funding and therefore scientific journals-few conventionally peer-reviewed papers on the topic are available. The LENR community attempts to provide some degree of review, but many scientists do not regard that review as adequate. To improve analysis, this article has reduced arguments (both pro and con) to independent scientific issues whenever possible. Many of these issues have been addressed in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

    U) Introduction

    (U) The study of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENRs) remains at the periphery of experimental physics, in part because of the negative press associated with the original publication of the Pons and Fleischmann results and in part because of the difficulty other research groups have reported in replicating those initial results.

    (U) From the original concept of fusion of deuterium nuclei in a palladium lattice at temperatures up to perhaps 1000 Kelvin, the science of cold fusion has evolved to include deuterium fusion in other metals, reactions of protons with nickel, and the transmutation of elements caused by these reactions. The term cold fusion has given way to new terms: low-energy nuclear reactions and lattice-enabled nuclear reactions, among others. The "low" in LENR refers to the input or initiation energies. not to the output energies.

    (U) In early research, the level of heat produced was very low. and the calorimetry needed to show that this heat was excess enthalpy was extremely difficult to perform. This difficulty resulted in data that were often open to question. Showing elemental transmutation is less ambiguous, and given the capabilities of today's instruments (such as the X-ray photoelectron spectrometer), verifying that new elements have appeared after LENRs have been Induced is relatively easy. For this reason, LENR researchers have recently emphasized showing that transmutation has ocourred to demonstrate more conclusively that reactions not allowed by conventional nuclear physics are taking place.

    (U) The normal deuterium fusion reaction requires that two deuterium nuclei be brought together with sufficient energy to overcome their mutual Coulomb repulsion. Most often, this is done by raising their temperature, and the energy needed to do so is at the heart of conventlonal "hot" fusion. However, this temperalure is so high that the reactants cannot be held in a solid container; instead, they must be contained by a magnetic field. This process has proven to be very difficult to accomplish for a time interval sufficient to generate useable energy. In spite of this diffieulty, attempts have been under way for the last 50 years, with the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars, and with no real success.

    (U) LENR, on the other hand, attempts to replicate the same process by using solid crystalline materials at normal temperatures as the container. The container consists of various metals, most often palladium, with which the deuterium reacts to form a chemical compound. The hypothesis is that the barrier between the deuterium nuclei is somehow reduced in the crystal lattice so that two nuclei can fuse. The process causing the barrier reduction to happen is not well understood, and the possibility continues to be rejected by many scientists. Dlfflculty in replicating the process on command and the continuing absence of plausible theories describing the process have perpetuated the rejection among scientists. Nonetheless, over the past 20 years many groups have reported observing this process.

    (U) How does one begin to mine the experimental data lo distinguish fact from fiction? To present as balanced an assessment of the status of LENR as possible. this assessment poses a series of questions and surveys the literature studied to obtain answers. In some cases, researchers active in the field were also contacted. It is not surpnsmg, therefore, that some of the answers may reflect the normal bias in favor expected from proponents and bias against expected from opponents. These questions and their answers may offer some insight Into the realities of LENR.

    March 2017

    (U) LENR Has Gone Far Beyond Cold Fusion. Whal Is the Current Consensus Definition of LENR?

    (U) No consensus exists on the definition of LENR. The popular term cold fusion Is still maintained by many in spite of the negative connotatlons associated with. Low-energy nuclear reactions has been adopted by many to reflect the advance of the research since 1989. Others use terms such as chemically assisted nuclear reactions to reflect the belief that the process is initiated by chemical energy while the name condensed-matter nuclear science has also come into use, especially by researchers from a solid-state physics background. Nagel of George Washington University (GWU) has coined the term lattice enhanced nuclear reactions to reflect the important role of the crystal lattice while preserving lhe LENR acronym that has become popular. It is quite descriptive of the current understanding of the mechanisms involved.

    (U} If there Is a point on which a consensus in the field is converging, it is that the nuclear reactions reported are initiated by chemical energy. Those who question the observations claim that the chemical energies that may be involved are many orders of magnitude below the levels typically needed to initiate nuclear reactions-which is true if the comparison is restricted to conventional plasma fusion; comparisons to the energies required by conventional plasma fusion may well be inappropriate or even irrelevant. Although the theory underlying the process is sparse, several ideas seem to have some limited support. These will be discussed later In this assessment.

    {U) Even more elusive is a full understanding of the environment that triggers the mechanism, the so-called nuclear-active environment. Initially, this environment was thought to exist in the bulk of the palladium cathode used in the Pons~Fleischmann method to produce cold fusion. It is now agreed that the nuclear reactions occur only in the surface region. Recent arguments suggest that this surface layer does not even require palladium for it to be nuclear-active. Nuclear reactions have now been produced In a variety of materials using many methods. The only common feature found in all of these methods, aside from the crystal lattice itself, is the presence of nano-sized particles of material on the active surface. If this observation is correct, four conditions seem to be required to produce the nuclear reactions. First, the particle must have a critical small size; second, it must contain a critical concentration of deuterium or hydrogen; third, it must be constructed of certain atoms; and fourth, It must be exposed lo a source of energy. This energy can take the form of a sufficiently high temperature, a significant high flux of hydrogen through the particle, the application of energetic electrons or charged particles, or the application of laser light of the proper frequency. Until the importance of these factors is understood, the effect will continue to be difficult to replicate.

    (U) What Has Been Proven (i.e., What Do All Informed Students of the Subject Agree Are True)?

    (U) Now we enter the minefield. First, the idea that LENR might represent some new physics is generally dismissed with the argument lhal if some of these "new physics" did indeed exist, its manifestation should not be confined to the singular phenomenon of LENR. Even in the presence of conflicting observations and beliefs, several claims seem to have been replicated in enough laboratories on several continents to warrant general acceptance with varying levels of confidence. They are as follows:

    • (U) Electrolysis cells containing deuterium and palladium can, under the proper circumstances, produce some excess energy in the form of heat. Here, "excess" is taken to be the measure of energy leaving the cell less the energy input to initiate and sustain the process.

    • (U) The second claim generally accepted as true but not universally replicated is that nuclear reactions do occur, as indicated by the claimed presence of nuclear-reaction products such as helium or neutron emissions. These claims are both difficult to prove and difficult to refute, and the fact Is that there is no definitive proof. To explain the lack of reaction products, the theory community has moved toward an explanation that does not involve fusion at all --- transmutation.

    • (U) A third clalm, which seems to be the least accepted, is that nuclear reactions or transmutations are taking place at chemical-energy levels. This claim is at best an oversimplification. Very low energy nuclear transmutations, such as neutron activation, are well known and would not be unusual, but whether such transmutations are involved here is unclear.

    (U) What Are the Key Experiments, and What Ara the Uncertainties In Those Measurements?

    {U) Prior to the initiation of the reaction, a solid (crystal lattice) must be loaded with the appropriate concentration of deuterium. This loading can occur in three general ways: electrochemical, in which the lattice is immersed (for example, in a bath of heavy water); thermodynamic, in which the lattice is loaded at an elevated temperature: or kinetic, using either a plasma or energetic beam of deuterons. By far. the most interest has been in studying the excess heat from a solid, loaded electrochemically, which was the method originally used in the Fleischmann and Pons study. Significant work has also been done looking for the expected nuclear products (often referred to as "nuclear ash") from all lattices except those implanted using energetic beams. Less work has been reported measuring the excess heat from thermodynamic and plasma loadings; the prompt radiation from electrochemical, thermodynamic, and beam loadings: and any measurement or the low-energy particles resulting from any lattice. Essentially no work has been reported studying the prompt radiation (photons) from lattices charged using plasmas or excess heat from lattices

    charged with particle beams.

    (U) Evidence for Excess Heat

    (U) Over 100 reports have now been published on the production of excess energy. This is an important point of contrast wllh ·pseudo-science• topics, on which only self-published reports on the lnternet--and no peer-reviewed reports-have been published showing positive experimental results. The exact source and mechanism of the excess energy are not agreed upon, but the experiments have been refined to the point that measurement errors are now discounted as the source of the excess energy. What is known about the excess heat production is being accumulated through more precise experimental conditions that have isolated both the electrode material composition and the surface effects of the electrodes as playing a vial role in excess heat production. Observed power gains are generally less (usually much less) than a factor of 10.

    (U) Hagelstein, et al,4 5 presented a summary paper on new physical effects in metal deuterides for the 2004 Department of Energy (DOE) review. The review touches on a number of other reported effects and is a comprehensive summary of experimental observations.

    (U) The relationship between excess heat and the atomic loading factor of deuterium in the palladium matrix has been studied by numerous investigators, and evidence shows that excess heat is a function of loading (i.e., the D/Pd atomic ratio). The effect appears to increase parabolically above a threshold loading of D/Pd -0 875. At a loading or 0.95 or greater, electrodes exhibited an excess heat three times the measurement uncertainty. For cells with cathode loading between 0.9 and 0.95, half demonstrated measurable excess heat. and half did not. The figure below (from Hagelstein, et al6 7 ) shows a threshold for excess power generation at an atomic ratio (D/Pd) of about 0.88. At a ratio or 0.93. the excess power is of the order of 1.5 W/cm3, rising to over 4 W/cm3 at a ratio of 0.96.

    (U) Excess Heal as a Function of Deuterium Loading (Hagelsteln)

    • (U) A strong sensitivity to operating temperature is also noted. The basic effect is consistent with the expression where P excess = where E3 is an equivalent activation energy of about 15Kcal/mol.

    U) Evidence for Nuclear Reactions

    (U} The correlation of reaction products with excess heat is still evasive, although it continues to be at the focus of inquiry. Insufficient chemical-reaction products are produced, by orders of magnitude, to account for the excess heat. The search for a correlation has expanded to include products of nuclear reactions-which is an even more difficult search because no known process is available for use as a model. Nonetheless, many attempts have been made to correlate excess heat with the presence of reaction products. Researchers have correlated the presence of 4He with excess heat, for example, in a variety of environments and with differing results. Studies by Miles and Bush, 10 McKubre, 11 and Gozzi12 have claimed to observe the presence of 4He. These studies result in several claims:

    • (U) Helium production varies linearly with excess power,

    • (U) The amount of helium is consistent with that expected from the D+D reaction (within a factor of 2).

    • (U) The helium is partially retained, and the dissolved helium is only slowly released to the gas phase.

    (U} Although the search for nuclear products (neutrons, tritons, etc) has not been successful generally, U.S. researchers Mosier-Boss, et at,13 14 have reported evidence of the production of energetic neutrons from an LENR device. The researchers also cite other evidence for the nuclear reactions, including Xrays, tntIum, and excess heat. In their experiment, an electrode of nickel or gold was placed in a solution of palladium chloride mixed with deuterium oxide. Specifically, their LENR experiment differed from earlier work by using Pd/D co-deposition. An electric current passes through a solution of palladium chloride and lithium chloride and electrolysis simultaneously co-deposits deuterium and palladium in particles about 60 nm in diameter, in equal amounts, on the cathode's neutral substrate, the gold or nickel. The electric current passed through the solution caused a reaction and a CR-39 plastic track detector recorded triple tracks, which are claimed to be evidence of high-energy neutrons emitted during the fusion of deuterium nuclei. Specifically, the triple tracks are attributed to the 12C(n,n')3 reaction. In just moments after codeposition begins. the cells show evidence of nuclear reactions. The electrode, with its new coating of palladium and deuterium, runs aboul 3°C warmer than the surrounding solution. The U.S. researchers claim that this Is the long-awaited evidence that there are neutrons present in LENR reactions. In a further innovation, they placed the cell in a magnetic field and found that the cathode temperature increased. However, this evidence is not universally accepted.

    (U) Kowalski15 questions whether the triple tracks actually do originate from alpha particles as MosierBoss claims. The results of his research indicates that the diameter of the tracks in CR-39 is not consistent with that to be expected from alpha particles, but rather from a particle with more mass.

    (U) Other researchers have recently reported the simultaneous production of excess heat and some nuclear process. Mizuno (Japan) Cites the simultaneous production of gamma rays and excess heat, while De Ninno 17 (Italy), in a long series of publications by a number of investigators dating back more than a decade, reports the simultaneous presence of excess heat and helium production.

    (U) Nuclear emissions consistent with (but not necessarily the result of) D+D fusion have been reported for more than two decades. These emissions include both neutron detection as well as charged-particle emissions. These low-level nuclear emissions typically occur in bursts lasting from seconds to days. The activity seems to be related lo current density In the cell. To confuse the issue further, although there have been several observations of excess heat with simultaneous emission of neutrons. X rays or gamma rays, there are also anti-correlation reports between excess heat and neutrons. Several reports also claim to observe weak nuclear emissions wtiich are not associated with D+D fusion. Energetic alpha particles (-15 million electron volts [MeV]) and protons (-14 MeV) have been observed in thin TiD foils. The appearance of these signals under conditions that have led to excess heat generation and apparent low-level D-D fusion may be useful in understanding the processes responsible for these effects.

    (U) As far back as 1990, the neutron-detection claims were called into question by experiments done at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The LANL experiments concentrated on detecting neutrons from an operaling LENR/cold-fusion cell using a high-efficiency well counter and an NE 213 scintillator. The entire experiment took place in a shlelded cave epproximately 50 feet underground. After approximately 6500 hours of counting time, no evidence of LENR neutron production was seen. Although the experimenters observed all three types of neutron data presented as evidence of LENR/cold fusion up to that lime-including large, positive fluctuations in the neutron counting rate; weak peaks near 2.5 MeV in the neutron energy spectrum; and bursts of up to 145 neutrons in 500 microsecond intervals-their conclusion was that the neutron signalure assigned to possible LENR/cold fusion processes could be explained by the naturally occurring neutron background (primarily the result of cosmic rays).

    (U) Nuclear reactions at the level of chemical energies is nothing new, Neutron-Induced nuclear fission, such as that in nuclear-power reactors, takes place using predominately thermal neutrons (neutrons wilh an average energy of 0.025 eV, well below the chemical-energy level). There are also sources of cold and ultra-cold neutrons (with energies down lo 10·7 eV), which are used in condensed-matter-physics experiments. The energy levels of these neutrons are so low that effective temperature is used rather than electron volts to define them. Also well known is that very-low-energy neutrons have deBroglie wavelengttls of the same size as interatomic bond lengths and can interact with molecules through excitation of molecular vibration modes. Very-low-energy neutrons produced in the electrodes would thermalize (i.e., gain energy from the lattice) and be detectable outside the experiment. Coupled with the fact that neutron signatures have been replicated with no fusion or excess heat severely reduces the credibility for reactions producing neutrons.

    {U) Palladium Stock Question

    (U) Interestingly, the key experiment may be one not directly related to the LENR process itself. The composition and structure of the palladium are speculated to be important to the process, even to the point that the source of the palladium may dictate beforehand whether or not the LENR process will be observed. Experiments In the United States offer "compelling evidence that the anomalous effects in deuterated systems are real. Nevertheless, no one has been able to solve the reproducibility problem. This research area will remain highly controversial until reproducibility can be demonstrated. The lack of reproducibility stems mainly from unknown and uncontrolled variables In the palladium stock. There is a remarkable correlation of excess power with the source of the palladium.

    (U) Are There Front Runners in the Theory? What Are the Most Likely Mechanisms Responsible for the Process? What Is the Status of the Relationship Between Theory and Experiment?

    (U) The questions above are all versions of the same one-and unfortunately, regardless of how it is phrased it has no fully satisfactory answer. Three generic types of theory appear in the LENR literature.

    • (U) The first continues to insist that D-D fusion with neutron and He production is taking place.

    • (U) The second seeks to explain why neutron or other signatures of D-D or T (traditional "hot" fusion reactions) are not seen in many experiments by claiming that transmutation events take place. This claim Is based on the Weak interaction (of particle physics). in which there is a collective transfer of energy to a small distribution of electrons. The electrons then penetrate the nuclei, interact with protons, and form neutrons with no momentum-and thus cannot escape to be detected externally.

    • (U) The third claims that D-D fusion takes place with no reaction products but with energy deposited directly into lattice as phonons. A related transmutation theory claims that shock waves can be used to initiate a self-densification process, which creates a "neutron soup" that allows for transmutation.

    The third type admits the conventional hot fusion nuclear reactions by claiming that a very-low energy resonance in the cross section exists, which also suppresses radiation signatures. More than anything, these unsubstantiated assertions reflect the urgency with which a theory is being sought.

    (U) Although there is no "front runner" theory that explains all of the experimental observations, several interesting theories have been put forth.

    • (U) Electron-catalyzed fusion (ECF) dating to at least 1991, ECF works in a similar manner to the better known muon catalyzed fusion. The central idea is that if an electron is placed in the center of mass of 2 deuterons, the deuterons will be attracted toward one another because or the electron's negative electric charge. The attraction may be able to bring the deuterons close enough to undergo fusion.

    • (U) LENR induced by electro weak interactions: Authors of a 2006 paper on nuclear abundances in metallic hydride electrodes of electrolytic chemical cells propose that collective electron- and proton-surface•plasma modes can give rise to ultra-low momentum neutrons. From this assumption, they calculate the scattering strength as a function of atomic mass number. Interestingly, the authors observe lhat because the mass number is equivalent to the radius of the optical well, when the neutron wavelength reaches resonance with the radius of the well, a peak appears in the scattering strength, and these peaks seem to correlate with observed nuclear transmutation abundances. This work evolved into LENR induced by electro-weak interactions. The main idea is that, under certain conditions, energy stored in low-energy electrons present on the surface of an electrode can be collectively transferred to create a small number of high-energy electrons. The electrons then penetrate a nucleus and combine with a proton, creating a very-low-energy neutron and thereby causing the transmutation of the nucleus to a (Z-1) species. This process is not a fusion reaction, and therefore it is used to explain why signatures of fusion reactions are not found in experiments, but excess heat is.

    • (U) Selective Resonant Tunneling Model: Xlng Zhong Li (Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China) developed a model to describe the nuclear reaction cross section at low energies (<100 keV). His model uses a potential that has both a real and imaginary part and compares his model to data from the National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Li shows that this data contained an error that existed for many years in the form of a false resonance In the cross section near 100 eV. His resonant model indicated that the 100 eV resonance was of the wrong form, and, when checked, the NNDC corrected the data set. LI further speculates that if an even lower energy resonance were to exist, although he has no indication that one does, it would explain fusion reactions occurring with several hundred nuclear diameters at low

    energies, and without strong nuclear radiation.

    (U) The Proton 21 group at the Kiev Electrodynamics Laboratory claim that It has clear evidence, taken from many experiments, of low energy nucleosynthesis. ll claims that using an electron beam to compress a small target initiates a self-organizing process of avalanche self-densificalion that is strong enough to force electrons into the nucleus, leading to the conversion of protons into neutrons and resulting in various nuclear transmutations.

    • (U) The Universal Resonance Principle of Synchronization: Gareev and Zhidkova of the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia have developed a theory they claim enhances very weak or rare reactions (of all kinds). The general idea is that the wave nature of matter allows for weak events to become synchronized, create a resonance condition, and therefore grow in strength to become a rare but observable phenomenon.

    • (U) Deeply bound Hydrogen Energy Level: The idea of this theory is that the process proceeds through an interaction with some deeply bound energy level of hydrogen (below the accepted 13.6 eV of the ground slate), or alternately that LENR is the result of four neutrons or two deuterons appearing simultaneously at the same point.

    (U) Another useful viewpoint considers the cross section for the reactions. The usual picture of fusion interactions operates through penetration of lhe Coulomb potential (barrier) between the charged particles. The cross section drops exponentially with decreasing energy. Hot-fusion reactions (D-D and o-n operate at a maximum cross section of -5 barns (1 barn= 10·24 cm21 at ~15 keV. Cold-fusion reactions (at chemical•level energies) would have to take place at-100 eV or less. In most cases, the cross sections are too small to be measured in the laboratory. An effect called electron screening, which can increase the effectlve cross section through enhanced Coulomb-barrier penetration, comes into play. Sinha, 28 a researcher at the Indian lnstitiute of Science, has performed a study indicating that the electron screening considerably improves the cross section for fusion in a solid matrix of metal deuterides. An extrapolation of this work would indicate that a standard-physics basis (under special conditions) would account for D-D fusion under those conditions. The key point is that the known interatomic distance for PdH systems is -2.9 Angstroms, too far apart for fusion. But if coupled with electron screening, a metal matrix that allowed for closer distances may account for low reaction rates of fusion using conventional physics.

    (U) The screening effect has also been studied for applications in nuclear astrophysics calculations without the effect of a lattice. The literature indicates that taking into account the screening effect alone does not

    increase the very-low-energy cross section sufficiently to account for LENR. These results may not be definitive, either because direct independent measurement of the cross sections is still not possible-and thus an unexpected resonance may still exist independently-or because of the lattice environment for LENR experiments. u29 30 claims that his technique can model the cross section at essentially all energies, provided that some calibration data are used. He makes no real predictions but hypothesizes that a resonance in the cross section below 100 eV (on the order of several barns) would explain cold-fusion reactions. Thus, although the possibility of fusion reactions cannot be ruled out, significant nuclear physics based reasons exist for not accepting the common cold-fusion explanation. This leaves transmutation (as opposed to fusion) as a major potential explanation for the excess heat and other products of LENR experiments.

    (U) Numbers of Interest

    (U) When two deuterium nuclei fuse, one of three processes can take place:

    (U) D+D = 3H + proton + 4.04 MeV

    (U) = 3He +neutron+ 3.27 MeV

    (U) = 4He + + 23.8 MeV

    (U) The first two processes (channels) each occur with a probability of about 0.5; the third occurs with a probability of 10-6. For each 4He atom created, about a million protons or neutrons should be created. If the excess heat Is attributed to the third of these channels (the one with the largest energy release), we can calculate the number of fusions per second that are needed to produce 1 W of power:

    (U) Simple dimensional analysis indicates that the number of fusion events per second necessary to generate 1 W from D-D fusion-yielding 23.8 MeV per fusion event-is about 2.6 X 1011.

    (U) At this point, one of two situations should arise: either protons or neutrons exceeding 1016 per second should appear; in their absence. a plausible explanation for their absence should be proposed. In the LENR literature lo date, the protons and neutrons have not been observed, and the absence ls not addressed other than the argument that somehow the reaction environment suppresses the two most likely channels.

    (U) A general expression for the total power in watts generated by any apparatus using nuclear reactions is given by P = V/2.62 x 1011 fusions per second, where = deuteron flux in units of deuterons per cm2 per second, "' macroscopic (geometric) cross section for D+D fusion In units or cm·1, and vs reaction volume in units of cm3•

    (U) lf the reacting volume is on the order or 10 cm3 and the macroscopic cross section is on the order of 10 cm·1, then !he power output would be P = 3.84 x 10·10 in watts, requiring andeuteron flux greater than 1010 deuterons per cm2 per second (for 1 W).

    (U) Similarly, the anticipated

    neutron flux from a neutron-producing channel would be -1010 neutrons per cm2 per second and should be easily detectable. Signatures at these levels have not been reported. To achieve reaction rates on the order of 1010 reactions per cm2 per second (thus explaining the heat production) would require the internuclear spacing be reduced from -2.9 Angstroms to ~0.5 Angstroms. One speculation is that this reduction may be possible using very controlled electrode material and accounting for electron screening.

    U) The key recurring issues that plague the acceptance of LENR include the following:

    • (U} Some explanation for the nonreproducibilily of positive results must be uncovered. II may be related to the inability to properly characterize materials, but that assertion must be validated.

    • (U) The absence of theories and physical models explaining the experimental claims continues. Without an acceptable theory on which to base experiments, the field will continue to be populated with measurements that may or may not be relevant to an understanding of the processes.

    • (U) Groups who depend on precision calorimetric measurements alone often lack appreciation of the difficulty of making such measurements. Standards must be set for these measurements.

    • (U) There is an absence of repeatable correlations belween heat generation and evidence of nuclearnprocesses. The possibility of nuclear reactions in the cell volume being triggered by cosmic rays musl be eliminated.

    U) A critical type of experiment that has yet to be performed Is the measurement of the fusion cross section at very low energies, including in a lattice. All experiments to date concentrate on excess energy production and hype the potential use of LENR as a carbon-free, "green" energy source without much consideration of the nuclear physics involved. Two situations seem logically possible:

    • {U) There is a significant cross section for D+D fusion reactions at very low energy because of a resonance not previously observed or somehow otherwise caused by the lattice environment.

    • (U) Nuclear transmutation ls taking place because of enhanced electro-weak interactions that produce zero-momentum neutrons.

    (U) The cross section (measured in barns, 1 barn = 1 o·24 cm2) for D+D reaction peaks at 0.1 barns at an energy of 3 x 103 keV. The lowest actual measurement is -2 keV, where the value is 10-4 barns. NGIC has identified nuclear astrophysics publications that have investigated D+D reactions in metals. These publications show an enhancement of the D+D reaction rates compared to gas-phase experiments. The enhancement is in the form of an increased screening effect that effectively increases the reaction energy. However, this enhancement may not be sufficient to explain the experimental observations related to excess heat fully.

    (U) Nuclear transmutation by ultra-low momentum neutrons involves not fusion, but rather neutron absorption. Several facilities worldwide are capable of generating ultra-cold neutrons with energies as low as 10·7 eV. Absorption cross sections generally rise as neutron energy decreases according to the "1/v" law, where v is the neutron velocity.

    (U) The issue of scaling also remains unresolved. The size of the cells used in all experiments is relatively modest, in large part because or the constraints imposed by calorimetric measurements. To date, only theoretical calculations and hopeful estimates exist for applications. A fully involved U.S. company has sponsored a website and filed for patents claiming that LENR-based systems could be scaled up for use as a CO2

    -free power source. A website from the UK presents calculations and claims to show that scaling-up would provide a reasonable power source again useful as These calculations are based on rather hopeful assumptions, including very significant improvements In the perfonnance of present systems. The data from the scientific literature does not indicate lhe existence of any resonance. but even if it did, the cross section and therefore the reaction rate Is not large enough to be useful. Furthermore, there seems no way to improve the process. In fission or hot fusion, the density of fuel can be increased to increase reaction rates and therefore heat production. There seems to be no way to accomplish a similar

    effect, however, with the LENR apparatus.

    (U) The engineering of the rest of any practical power-producing systems is not usually addressed in lhe LENR literature. For example, even if one were to accept the most optimistic energy•density values attributed to the process, the result Is a thermodynamic process at modest temperatures, far below any practical temperature needed for anything but very low-efficiency conversion. Also yet to be discussed meaningfully is the issue of scaling the required Input power to run large electrolytic cells. The power available from a source determines its potential applications. This output power is determined by the energy per reaction and the number of reactions per second that can occur. Neither of these quantities is adequately known for LENR. For practical applications, the issue of scalability will need to be addressed.

    U) Who Are the Active Leaders In the Field, and What Seems to be Their Motivation?

    (U) The Laboratories Reporting Nuclear Transmutations

    U) Energetics Technologies (ET) Laboratories is located in Israel but is a wholly.owned subsidiary of a U.S. company. Its studies have several interesting features. For instance, their electrolysis cells contain ultrasonic transmitters to induce cavitation in the electrolyte at the palladium-electrode surface. The company claims that this arrangement provides some in situ cleaning and activation of the surface, generates dislocations, and assists in loading and excitation of the deuterium-palladium system. In addition, it employs SuperWaves ™, a complex superposition of a number of sine waves of decreasing wavelengths, to drive the process. The concept of SuperWaves was developed by the founder, Dardik, who first developed the idea as part of a medical treatment.

    (U) ET claims that the use of electrical SuperWave stimulation, in combination with ultrasound stimulation, has produced excess heat of significant amounts in 82% of the cells. ET has attracted collaborators from both the United States and ENEA (Italy), who claim to have used the ET SuperWave electrical stimulation to achieve 73% reproducibility and 50% reproducibility, respectively. The stated reason for this extraordinary enhancement of reproducibility is that the complex SuperWaves enhance the loading of deuterium into the palladium and effectively excites the deuterium-palladium system. The SuperWave interactions intensify the resulting excess heat The use of SuperWave excitation appears to produce more power gain than has ever been reported before. In one case, ET reported a P 00/Pin ratio of 30. It also claims to have generated excess power of 34 W and excess heat of 3.5 megajoules (MJ). In addition, ET has reported observing excess power for as long as 40 days and a specific power of 70 W/g of palladium.

    (U) Although ET's claimed achievements are generating a lot of publicity, crilics claim that the SuperWave stimulation leads to errors in the calorimetry. The measurement of heat input Is derived by Integrating the

    complex sine-wave input signal, a process that Is prone to numerical errors.

    (U) Conclusions

    (U) The answers to the questions posed in the purpose section are es follows:

    • (U) Is LENR or cold fusion a threat to U.S. national security? No. LENR/cold fusion poses no threat to national security at this time. The results in this area are a scientific mystery, but not a threat.

    • (U) Will any foreign countries or organizations gain a strategic advantage over the United States in using LENR, or wlll they have a capability the United Slates will not have? No. The United States has among the best researchers in this field, and it is unlikely that progress would be made without the U.S. experts knowing.

    • (U) Will LENR/cold fusion contribute In a significant way to the energy production issues facing the world? No, not in Its present form. Even given excess heat production, the amounts are so modest as to prevent scaling the heat-production process to useable size.

    (U) LENR will not go away-quite the opposite. It continues to grow in scale and credibility. An increasing number of credentialed research groups worldwide are reporting similar results supporting LENR. Absent any unanticipated event, LENR is on the verge of entering the mainstream of science.

    (U) The evidence of excess heat related lo deuterium loading is overwhelming. Early reliance on calorimetry as the sole basis for claiming LENR activity has been augmented by measurements of "nuclear ash." Further, the early critics' claims that the calorimetry was flawed because of improper calibrations is being addressed. although some doubts stlll exist-not because adequate precision is not available, but because experimentalists do not appreciate the difficulty of the measurement.

    {U) The claim that it is possible to trigger a nuclear reaction with MeV energy yields with essentially chemical energies at the eV level is an oversimplification. Very-low-energy nuclear reactions (fission, neutron absorption, and so forth) are well known. The keys are the mass-energy carried by the incident particle or photon and the binding energy of the target. NGIC assesses that although LENR cannot be completely ruled out, there is currently no definitive evidence for such reactions. Each theory

    proposed lacks signatures that should be present and are not.

    {U) Some systematic trends seem to be emerging, among them the relation between excess heat and deuterium loading of the metal matrix.

    (U) The nuclear products expected of D+D fusion are not always detected, and the most likely channels for plasma fusion are generally absent in LENR. These phenomena have yet to be explained properly.

    (U) Transmutation of elements has been reported, although the data from these experiments are not as robust as data claiming excess heat This area is experimental and needs to be tracked carefully.

    (U) Consideration of Alternative Analyses and Contrary Evidence

    (U) Rejection of LENR-and specifically cold fusion-takes two forms: first, general statements made by well-intentioned classical physicists who energetically insist that LENR is not possible and that if one does not want to dismiss the law of the conservation of energy, LENR must be rejected; and second, the inability of experimentalists to replicate results on demand coupled with the continuing absence of a plausible theory to explain LENR. In the early days of LENR, critics claimed that the positive excess heat results were the result of measurement errors (or fraud).

    (U) Both of these objections may have merit, but neither together nor individually do they seem to mitigate the positive results reported by an increasing number of reputable research groups around the world.

    Although early criticism or the LENR results attributed excess heat to experimental errors, the strong experimental data now emerging shows that experimental error is not the source of the positive results.

    (U) On the other side of the argument are what may be called the unabashed proponents of LENR and cold fusion. These proponents unequivocally believe that cold fusion Is the green energy source of the future and that there is a conspiracy among "establishment" scientists and the energy industry to conceal the success of cold fusion. Their products are usually nothing more than one-sided advertisements.

    (U) Two analyses would shed much light on the situation. The first would be a comparative, comprehensive material analysis of the matrix materials that produced both the positive and negative results. The second would be an in depth study of the status of the theories that attempt to explain the phenomenon.

    (U) Intelligence Gaps

    (U) ft is too early to consider any potential key intelligence gaps in the area of LENR. There are several stages in the life of a new science, the first and most important of which is a clear understanding or what is happening. Only with this understanding can attempts be made to exploit the science for potential applications, good or bad. LENR is still struggling with the first stage: understanding.

    (U) A number of intelligence collection topics could yield insights into the future of LENR and are likely obtainable from open-source lilerature:

    • (U) The development of a generally accepted theory underpinning LENR.

    • (U) Evidence of a very.few energy resonance In the D+D reaction.

    • (U) The appearance of results on the detailed characterization of the electrode materials.

    • (U) Evidence of scalability in either the operating temperature or the cell volume.

    • (U) Identification of a source or sources that appear to produce materials repeatedly successful in replicating positive LENR results. .

    • (U) Increased interest in co-deposition as a means of loading the cell with deuterium.

    All Army information contained herein was regraded

    UNCLASSIFIED on 20 March 2017


  • All Wyttenbach is saying that all peoples on planet EARTH are subject to the same rules, medically and in peace and in war. There is an old Japanese saying "In times of PEACE we must prepare for WAR, whilst in times of WAR we must prepare for PEACE". Buddhist or Shinto I don't know. 8) :) :) :)

    Too much generalization, I don't think so.You seem to agree to Wyttenbach that there is no difference between being killed as civillian by Putins weapons (incl. banned vaccum bombs and cluster munitions...) and NOT having a choice, different to people in western countries who have a choice (if they want) to not getting vaccinated or having a choice between different vaccines. Your smilies are far from fitting to this topic.

  • There is no choice of vaccination, or not vaccinated according to our beloved NHS. It is a governmental EDICT that we all must be vaccinated to save the NHS! Same for the Ukranians to fight for Libertad to protect the Ukrainian people to reject the Russian advance. Hopefully both sides will soon back down and restore PEACE!