Lomax wrote:
Quote* SPAWAR neutron claims. Kowalski questioned a particular interpretation of the CR-39 results, but not the neutron claims. They stand as neither confirmed nor dismissed, AFAIK. Kowalski knows that cold fusion is real.
I was referring more to an Italian group that published a rebuttal to neutron emission claims, and offered some plausible CR-39 artifacts that may have caused spurious effects (Faccini et al., Eur Phys J. C 74 (2014) 1). This was quite recent, in 2014. If you read my replies, you would have seen that. These authors certainly appear to be extreme skeptics.
As for Kowalsaki, the abstract states: "A recent claim [Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 40, 293 (2007)] demonstrating a nuclear process triggered by electrolysis is challenged. An analysis, based on relative diameters, is used to demonstrate that predominant pits could not possibly be attributed to alpha particles, or to less massive nuclear projectiles." That excludes neutrons as well.
But the main point is it is a negative paper, arguing that certain LENR claims are not supported by the evidence. And yes, Kowalski does seem to be sympathetic to cold fusion, but he is more cautious than to claim he *knows* it's real. And in spite of his sympathy, another of his papers (in JCMNS) is negative, where he reports failure to reproduce Oriani's "highly reproducible emissions":
"Unexplained emission of charged nuclear projectiles due to electrolysis has been reported by Richard Oriani. Experimental results were said to be highly reproducible. Working independently, we were not able to observe emission of charged nuclear particles (in a chemical process similar to Oriani’s) and therefore are unable to provide supporting evidence that the effect is reproducible."
He also admits "We are still waiting for at least one reproducible-on-demand demonstration of a nuclear effect resulting from a chemical (atomic) process." It's difficult to understand how one can be sympathetic to a field in the absence of such a demonstration, particularly when the claimed phenomenon represents an energy density a million times higher than gasoline under easily accessible conditions, after 17 years of trying and $500M spent.
And yes, the kindest thing that can be said of the SPAWAR work is that it not confirmed, which is presumably why SPAWAR shut the project down. And yet, it accounts for an appreciable fraction of the positive experimental claims of cold fusion since 2005. Take them out, and take out the challenged Arata-type claims, and pretty much all that's left in mainstream refereed literature is theory and reviews.