Thank you Can for transcribing. Storms has extensive knowledge of LENR. He has been investigating it for 29 years, both by himself and with others. I would say that if he thinks this "rather strange characteristic" is "truly unusual, very novel, and no doubt reveals something very very important about the nuclear reaction" then others in the field should take notice. Perhaps they have?
Also, reports of "strange radiation" seem to be popping up everywhere lately, and I could not help but wonder if there is a link? Too bad mainstream science is not involved, as it may take their involvement to piece all these seemingly unrelated, strange and unusual effects together...whether what they discover turns out to be an unusual anomaly, or LENR. They *are* seeing something, that is for sure.
It is a hell of a mystery this LENR, so it is understandable why those in the field like Storms call it an addiction.
Shane D, it's always a real pleasure to read your comments.
I decided to not go to ICCF 21 becausen for myself, always the same circus made by mostly self-satisfied retirees.. ( no more than few XH since long long years)
The good point was : Money saved for own experiments.
The bad : I lost opportunity to meet people like Ed Storms.
During an older event in France a friend shared his paper/work where it was well explained how a palladium test sample deforms anisotropically in relation to its length and width, helped too by famous alpha and beta phases.
Therefore, Jacques Ruer shared a paper at ICCF 21 where he proposed tangible scenarios to explain that events listed as LENR would not be in fact.
I remember for example P&F sample that melted/crossed the table.
I understand palladium remains expensive therefore why Ed didn't test some sample with large geometric differences to try to increase its XH ?
I would have liked to ask him this question ..