IMO, the benefit of skepticism is to expose frauds and cons like you-know-who-s-initials-are-AR.
Not a Rossi thread.. SOTs favorite fallback meme..
SOT's technical expertise is zip... such as thinking that 300 pascals is a huge and dangerous pressure... in another persona
known as maryyugo...in previous discussions of the Mizuno 2107 results
Now the only problem is convincing other people to study the reaction in an effective way. Yes, LENR has a poor reputation thanks to people who will not do the homework required to know the facts. Instead, they start with the belief that everyone who accepts LENR must be either incompetent or without the basic skill to know that is real and what is not, a skill that the skeptical person thinks he has. I have discovered in all cases of applied skepticism, the skeptic knows less than people in the field who actually accept the evidence. I see no benefit to skepticism except during the early stage of a discovery. After that, the effort is pointless and counter productive, as hundreds of examples involving every aspect of human discovery have confirmed.
This is an interesting and subtle argument. I'd certainly agree, skeptics will naturally know less about (the new phenomenon) than those who have studied it, and their efforts therefore are indeed counterproductive. I'd disagree that every skeptic comes into the category of "those who will not do homework".
LENR (as defined in forums like this) is certainly not yet in the position of an established "phenomenon" where skeptics have no role in its investigation. That is because of the very diverse range of claims, none of which are clearly differentiable as "not LENR". Personally that aspect is what I most dislike, and if it is really like that, where sundry effects that appear inexplicable are considered by serious LENR researchers as possible LENR, then I'd have little hope.
However I am more optimistic. There are a relatively constrained set of core observations (I hope) that represent either a collection of systematic and one-off errors, or some not well understood and interesting physics. It interests me both ways. If not new physics, then understanding the error mechanisms is a challenge. If new physics, then there are several more interesting challenges.
The question you raise then is, if we take those core observations, is "skepticism" about specific instances that might be part of that core helpful or a big waste of time. Take as one topical example, Mizuno's R19 and R20 results. I'd call his work potentially core: it has the right elements, D, Pd. However it is an outlier in terms of other conditions (vacuum, Pd/Ni). Also, his work has such easily observable results that either R19 or R20, working as shown by his measurements, and tested by independent, skeptical, well resourced laboratories, would move LENR from a fringe area into the mainstream. Also, as an outlier at a phenomenological level, the work potentially has great use in guiding theoretical mechanisms. For example: why does the vacuum level affect results? Many other such questions where hypotheses can be compared with hard evidence from working experiments.
So Mizuno's work is of interest, not just as a larger than usually claimed anomaly, but because of its specifics.
Possibly you think that the two major claims made, R19 and R20, are both carefully enough investigated that the chances of their not being real are small. In that case you are right: skeptics here are a distraction from the real work. Equally, in that case, LENR is close to a sea change because either R19 or R20, working uniformly for the length of time they have (many months) can be independently tested.
Otherwise, if these claims are based on mistakes and error, Mizuno's work is a big distraction. I see the role of skeptics as still needed in LENR until such time as claims like Mizuno's can be easily and accurately differentiated as important and real, or artifactual.
The centre of opinion here is probably hope they are real, with a greater than evens estimated chance of that, but no certainty. After ten or so failed replications that would split into some who were convinced the original results were real, and more who reckoned they were probably not. And of course, even one reputable replication would change everything. In fact any LENR researcher who is not now very optimistic indeed about the future of LENR must be falling on the "more likely Mizuno's R19 and R20 are not real" side of the estimating.
If LENR is new science then it matters for the evaluation of Mizuno's work to be precise, either way it will skew investigation into what LENR really is.
THH
I give him a lot of credit for what he did. Hopefully everyone does.
Amen. This format has much to commend it. It gives everybody time to collect their thoughts and build structured contributions.
I concur that this has been a valuable and constructive exercise. It has certainly not been a failure.
Hats off to the moderation team for their organising of this dialogue.
As the “Deadline” for achieving a consensus set by Shane D. is coming to pass today, I feel compelled to do a last ditch effort to make Team Google look at the very important research of cavitation induced nuclear transformations.
During the past week I have been thoroughly studying the paper, graciously shared with me by Prof. Fabio Cardone, entitled “Deformed space-time transformations in Mercury” (Cardone et al 2017)
https://www.worldscientific.co…10.1142/S0217979217501685
which is a follow up to the paper “Nuclear Metamorphosis In Mercury” (Cardone et al, 2015)
https://www.researchgate.net/p…_metamorphosis_in_mercury
with much more analytical data on the new elements and isotopes found after ultrasound treatment of a mole of mercury. I have been consulting also all the references when possible.
Irregardless of the criticism of the focus of this experiments as proof of the author’s theory of Deformed Time Space, I think these results are of extreme importance to the validation of LENR as a field and have been completely overlooked and ignored.
We are being shown proof that nuclear transmutations of dramatic nature can be obtained at room temperature and by simple physical means. We are being shown a nearly instantaneous change of phase (takes place within 180 seconds) from liquid to solid without chemical reaction. We are being shown completely unambiguous appearance of new elements and isotopes in the grains of the solid material formed from the ultrasound treated mercury.
IMHO we should all be very interested in this paper as is rock solid proof that profound and dramatic nuclear phenomena can happen completely outside of the conditions expected and predicted by current mainstream accepted theories!!!!!
And I think Team Google should seriously look into this research and team up with the authors to follow up and replicate this work, which IMHO completely remove the question mark about LENR in a completely unambiguous and straight forward verifiable way.
THH: I have actually said three different things, all true, none what JR says I said, though (3) might be confused with this:
(1) where power is measured via I and V, with I as voltage across shunt, then, different shunt resistors used but by mistake not changed in the calculation could give this error
(2) where power is measured as V, using a previously known V -> P relation (as M did for airflow vs blower power), a change in this relationship due to a different resistance heater, not changed in the calculations, could lead to this
(3) where power is measured on input side of a PSU then the output power could be arbitrarily smaller, depending on PSU type. Thus an assumption of fixed PSU efficiency could go wrong if applied to a different voltage output.
And I actually told you that in all cases, the power is also measured with several off-the-shelf meters, which confirm the I * V measurements. These include plug in and clamp on types. They include meters in the lab, the one I brought, and the ones two visitors brought. You ignored what I wrote and repeatedly made these assertions. I am sure you will make them again, hoping that no one notices what I wrote.
Over the years, my understanding of how to make active Pd has changed. Unfortunately, when an idea is published, it becomes fact as has the paper about how to produce LENR that Jed quotes, which was published in 1996. This paper only gives a small fraction of the issues now known to be involved in making potentially active Pd. My more recent papers go into greater detail and address some of the important issues.
I did not mean to suggest this paper was the last word on how to replicate. Of course more has been learned. However, everything in the paper remains true as far as I know. Everything in it was confirmed by Fleischmann and Cravens.
Fleischmann also said the Type-A could be made to produce excess energy because it had been made oxygen-free by adding boron during the batch purification process.
The people from Johnson Matthey said that. They told that to Fleischmann, to me, and others.
We simply do not know what is true because F-P did not bother to analyze their material.
"Did not bother" is the wrong way to put it. They were contractually prevented from analyzing the material. Toyota agreed that post-experiment material would be returned to J-M without analysis, and J-M would do all analyses. Apparently they kept the analyses secret. This upset Fleischmann a great deal. He was livid! He said the whole arrangement collapsed because of stupidity and greed on the part of both Toyota and J-M, especially Toyota.
Storms all of expert you referred are here :
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/
75% of these papers are written following P&F way.
30 years since the beginning we already talk ONLY about silver inside palladium, is this useful or not ?
What a fiasco !
the reason for failure is that general level remains extremely low, This is the reign of copy/paste because few people can think, create, by themselves, concepts, ideas, which are really worth it.
I recently asked a few more pointed questions about IRs and there was no one ( to give an answer) , apart from wikipedia or about fucking emissivity !
Now, I'm going to talk to you "silver" and there will be no one, once again..
Do you know the notion of "stacking fault energy"? because you remain the father of NAE concept .
I don't remember seeing it inside papers listed above ?
This potential lattice deformation energy can be lowered, how ?
First, we meet 2 types of cracks inside lattice, slipping or twinning.
What you should know is : hydrogen inside nickel crack decrease SFE so this lattice energy released helps to stabilize H+ clusters where were cracks.
This is the same if you use a Nickel/Cobalt alloy, it decreases SFE so tend to stabilize H+ clusters.
Now, most interesting, we have the same behavior about silver/palladium alloy, it tends to stabilize D+ clusters if there is enough cracks created beforehand .
Silver rate inside this alloy isn't the clue..
30 years later, we don't know anymore if high D/Pd loading remains important or not ? 30 years of intellectual torpor took place.
To conclude, money, septics aren't valid reasons to explain why Google can't find 3 ways to prove Lenr currently. Only "people" from Lenr ground are the responsible ones, even if convergent or divergent opinions.
DF
Edited for language. Shane
After ten or so failed replications that would split into some who were convinced the original results were real, and more who reckoned they were probably not. And of course, even one reputable replication would change everything.
If the original result is real but a series of replications fail, then to not have independent observers (including skeptics and non-skeptics) observe and thoroughly document any ongoing phenomenon would be tragic. While many here are confident that the behavior of the R20 is as now written up, the rest of the world does not appear to be.
The claimed power level and COP both make this particular claim, assuming the R20 is continuing to operate, easy for observers to confirm or refute. Confirmation (even if not believed by many) would draw funds and researchers to the field. Refutation would limit the energy wasted on a wild-goose chase.
I must have missed that one. Can you link to it or give the post number? Did you really say that THHuxleynew? Unqualified, that would be a very odd assertion.
He repeated it. See:
The claimed power level and COP both make this particular claim, assuming the R20 is continuing to operate, easy for observers to confirm or refute.
The R19 was operating last month. A visitor came and confirmed the 4 parameters: input power, inlet and outlet temperatures, and the air flow rate. He used his own handheld digital instruments. The first 3 agreed closely, as you would expect. His anemometer came up with a slightly higher number, indicating more excess heat. Many other visitors have confirmed the instruments over the years, including me. Mizuno uses redundant instruments, including 3 power meters. As I mentioned above, pathological skeptics such as THH ignore this, pretending he depends only on the I*V measurement made by the HP gadget that generates the spreadsheets. If that were true, THH might have a point, but it isn't so he doesn't.
The mesh from the R20 was removed this month. A new one was installed. So far, it has only produced 30 W. It may improve with exercise or additional processing. Actually 30 W is a fantastic result compared to what Mizuno was getting a few years ago, so I am pleased. As I said, people replicating this should be prepared to measure a few watts at first. They will need to recapitulate Mizuno's experiences and learning curve, hopefully in many fewer years than it took him. That may depend partly on whether they follow instructions or whether they try to do it their own way, with the wrong instruments and methods of calorimetry that probably will not work.
The older mesh removed from the R20 that produced 250 W will be analyzed, if we can come up the money and find someone to analyze it.
As always, research would be easier with a barrel full of money. To estimate costs, write down a reasonable, carefully derived list of likely expenses. Then double that amount, add 6, and multiply by pi squared, crumple up the paper, and toss it in the trash. No one has the slightest idea how much it will cost, or what must be done, or what the outcome will be. If anyone knew, either they would be omniscient, or this would not be fundamental research. It would be engineering, or paint by the numbers, which is apparently what Seven_of_twenty thinks it is. He has no clue!
The claimed power level and COP both make this particular claim, assuming the R20 is continuing to operate, easy for observers to confirm or refute. Confirmation (even if not believed by many) would draw funds and researchers to the field. Refutation would limit the energy wasted on a wild-goose chase.
This is a big issue with this field in general. How can there be such an unknown!!!
1) If the R20 reactor works as described, it is world changing. Perhaps the biggest of the century! It would greatly impact/solve Global Warming which is being touted as a thread to humanities existence!
2) Why are people farting around with replications, modifications, endless diatribe about this or that. Get Google or some other established, capable team to Mizuno's lab and confirm that R20 and get us started on the revolution. This is getting silly. Of course replications are needed, but having observed one working and confirmed would put the money, people and equipment on the task by several.
3) We cannot even seem to get confirmations that a unit is running or not? What? I do not understand this at all. We cannot even get a list of who 12 reactors were sent to if at all? This is not the dark ages when communications between 1000 miles could take months. A phone call or email is instantaneous. If someone cannot answer quick questions because they are "improving" something that has not even be confirmed to work.... something is seriously wrong.
4) Shane is evidently in contact with the Google Team. Shane, ask them that if a joint project with Mizuno could be arranged... they travel to Japan, visit his lab and monitor the working R20 with cooperation from him in measurements, etc. Would they be interested. If so, get Jed on the phone with Mizuno and get the project
scheduled and moving ASAP!
Why is 99% of the postings here happening? There should be one if not three capable teams at Mizuno's lab right now, monitoring the R20..... unless....
it is not working and Mizuno cannot get it to work again. 
So what is the truth?
Is there a reactor running now?
If so, get a team there.
What excuses could out weigh the importance of magnitude working LENR would bring to this world?
(No, do not give me the BS about big oil and other's squashing this technology. That is paranoid, unclear thinking)
And I actually told you that in all cases, the power is also measured with several off-the-shelf meters, which confirm the I * V measurements. These include plug in and clamp on types. They include meters in the lab, the one I brought, and the ones two visitors brought. You ignored what I wrote and repeatedly made these assertions. I am sure you will make them again, hoping that no one notices what I wrote.
No, you have not told me that before, or I would have asked, before, what I ask now:
(1) is this before the PSU or after the PSU (you said previously power was measured before the PSU).
(2) which of the R19 / R20 measurements do these additional (you + visitors) measurements apply to? Unless you left eqpt with Mizuno it seems unlikely that this would apply to many of them?
Display MoreThe R19 was operating last month. A visitor came and confirmed the 4 parameters: input power, inlet and outlet temperatures, and the air flow rate. He used his own handheld digital instruments. The first 3 agreed closely, as you would expect. His anemometer came up with a slightly higher number, indicating more excess heat. Many other visitors have confirmed the instruments over the years, including me. Mizuno uses redundant instruments, including 3 power meters. As I mentioned above, pathological skeptics such as THH ignore this, pretending he depends only on the I*V measurement made by the HP gadget that generates the spreadsheets. If that were true, THH might have a point, but it isn't so he doesn't.
The mesh from the R20 was removed this month. A new one was installed. So far, it has only produced 30 W. It may improve with exercise or additional processing. Actually 30 W is a fantastic result compared to what Mizuno was getting a few years ago, so I am pleased. As I said, people replicating this should be prepared to measure a few watts at first. They will need to recapitulate Mizuno's experiences and learning curve, hopefully in many fewer years than it took him. That may depend partly on whether they follow instructions or whether they try to do it their own way, with the wrong instruments and methods of calorimetry that probably will not work.
The older mesh removed from the R20 that produced 250 W will be analyzed, if we can come up the money and find someone to analyze it.
As always, research would be easier with a barrel full of money. To estimate costs, write down a reasonable, carefully derived list of likely expenses. Then double that amount, add 6, and multiply by pi squared, crumple up the paper, and toss it in the trash. No one has the slightest idea how much it will cost, or what must be done, or what the outcome will be. If anyone knew, either they would be omniscient, or this would not be fundamental research. It would be engineering, or paint by the numbers, which is apparently what Seven_of_twenty thinks it is. He has no clue!
That is helpful Jed, and such measurements, if documented, while not in some ways as good as what I suggest (comparison with control) are nevertheless pretty good (and in fact are better in some other ways). Do you have the details? I think that would significantly increase the validity of these results.
If we have only this (absolute) data, rather than comparison with control, that is better:
Input side power measurement is fine, just assume worst case PSU is 100% efficient. Or measure direct the heater power, which would allow higher calculated excess.
No issues about calorimeter efficiency, just again assume 100% efficient.
If we have significant excess power (say +30%) using this calorimetry, and with issues about adjusting for expected but not confirmed PSU and calorimeter efficiency, I think that would be very helpful.
Can you check these details as checked specifically on a single occasion by somone willing to document this?
IMO, the benefit of skepticism is to expose frauds and cons like you-know-who-s-initials-are-AR. And the cost of AR to Darden and others was only the tip of the iceberg in terms of lost resources and effort to scammers. Scientists tend to be too trusting. When they look for problems with experiments, they are not looking for sleight of hand and outright cheating and lying. But those are all too common. It's not that the skeptic knows more about the field, it's that sometimes the things a skeptic knows and can detect are different from what a scientist versed in a specific field can see. Skeptics are also useful at detecting non-obvious errors. And while they may not know all the inside information experts in a field do, they know portions of some methods more in depth. Skeptics can keep people steeped in a given field out of trouble. There is room for lots of skills and skepticism is just one of them.
OK, let's discuss skepticism because this word has several meanings. Yes, a skeptic can beneficially question the validity of an individual claim, such as that of Rossi, as you noted. But the skeptic can also keep a true and real discovery from being accepted, as has happened to many major discoveries made over the centuries, including LENR. Ironically, the skepticism you are describing did not save Darden a dime but it has denied mankind a valuable source of energy for decades.
I would also point out that a difference exists between skepticism and a normal effort to do good science. A person can accept the claim made by F-P, as supported by hundreds of similar studies, while pointing out how the studies could be improved or better interpreted. This approach is entirely different from how the so-called skeptics of LENR treat the subject. They seem to be intent on supporting the myth that LENR is not real by sowing confusion. A person might wonder about the motives for doing this in view of the huge amount of evidence that PROVES that LENR is a real phenomenon. Rather than acknowledging this evidence and directing their attention to the questions it reveals, they pick and choose possible errors based on their imagination applied to a single study. That approach is not science. It can be better described as applied politics. The need for the kind of energy source that LENR promises is becoming so critical, the continued rejection of LENR borders on a crime against humanity. I suggest the people who take pleasure in finding fault turn their attention to some other subject because now they are doing more harm than good.
Jed,
If you have a moment, can you clarify what you mean by 30W? Is it that you are feeding in 250W and getting 280W "worth" of heat out?
It is unfortunate that there is no longer an operating device with the COP and power reported; that obviously changes the value of a Google confirmation project. I can understand the need to examine the effects on the mesh, but it remains unfortunate.
I don't understand how I could have missed the fact that the R20 is no longer operating.
OK, let's discuss skepticism
In science, falsification, in the context of validation, is as important as verification and there will be no falsification without skepticism . In the theory of science according to Karl Popper, the falsifiability of a theory or hypothesis plays a central role. Falsified statements, theses, theories are worthless to science as a method of gaining knowledge and are rejected. Appropriate skepticism serves to keep science clean.
Display MoreNow the only problem is convincing other people to study the reaction in an effective way. Yes, LENR has a poor reputation thanks to people who will not do the homework required to know the facts. Instead, they start with the belief that everyone who accepts LENR must be either incompetent or without the basic skill to know that is real and what is not, a skill that the skeptical person thinks he has. I have discovered in all cases of applied skepticism, the skeptic knows less than people in the field who actually accept the evidence. I see no benefit to skepticism except during the early stage of a discovery. After that, the effort is pointless and counter productive, as hundreds of examples involving every aspect of human discovery have confirmed.
This is an interesting and subtle argument. I'd certainly agree, skeptics will naturally know less about (the new phenomenon) than those who have studied it, and their efforts therefore are indeed counterproductive. I'd disagree that every skeptic comes into the category of "those who will not do homework".
LENR (as defined in forums like this) is certainly not yet in the position of an established "phenomenon" where skeptics have no role in its investigation. That is because of the very diverse range of claims, none of which are clearly differentiable as "not LENR". Personally that aspect is what I most dislike, and if it is really like that, where sundry effects that appear inexplicable are considered by serious LENR researchers as possible LENR, then I'd have little hope.
However I am more optimistic. There are a relatively constrained set of core observations (I hope) that represent either a collection of systematic and one-off errors, or some not well understood and interesting physics. It interests me both ways. If not new physics, then understanding the error mechanisms is a challenge. If new physics, then there are several more interesting challenges.
The question you raise then is, if we take those core observations, is "skepticism" about specific instances that might be part of that core helpful or a big waste of time. Take as one topical example, Mizuno's R19 and R20 results. I'd call his work potentially core: it has the right elements, D, Pd. However it is an outlier in terms of other conditions (vacuum, Pd/Ni). Also, his work has such easily observable results that either R19 or R20, working as shown by his measurements, and tested by independent, skeptical, well resourced laboratories, would move LENR from a fringe area into the mainstream. Also, as an outlier at a phenomenological level, the work potentially has great use in guiding theoretical mechanisms. For example: why does the vacuum level affect results? Many other such questions where hypotheses can be compared with hard evidence from working experiments.
So Mizuno's work is of interest, not just as a larger than usually claimed anomaly, but because of its specifics.
Possibly you think that the two major claims made, R19 and R20, are both carefully enough investigated that the chances of their not being real are small. In that case you are right: skeptics here are a distraction from the real work. Equally, in that case, LENR is close to a sea change because either R19 or R20, working uniformly for the length of time they have (many months) can be independently tested.
Otherwise, if these claims are based on mistakes and error, Mizuno's work is a big distraction. I see the role of skeptics as still needed in LENR until such time as claims like Mizuno's can be easily and accurately differentiated as important and real, or artifactual.
The centre of opinion here is probably hope they are real, with a greater than evens estimated chance of that, but no certainty. After ten or so failed replications that would split into some who were convinced the original results were real, and more who reckoned they were probably not. And of course, even one reputable replication would change everything. In fact any LENR researcher who is not now very optimistic indeed about the future of LENR must be falling on the "more likely Mizuno's R19 and R20 are not real" side of the estimating.
If LENR is new science then it matters for the evaluation of Mizuno's work to be precise, either way it will skew investigation into what LENR really is.
THH
Thanks for a wise and effective analysis of the problem. I agree, all claims made about LENR need to be carefully evaluated. But after hundreds of examples of excess heat and nuclear products being reported, the issue is no longer whether LENR is real. Clearly something very strange is happening in certain materials. Consequently, I claim such an evaluation, as you describe, needs to be done with the assumption that the phenomenon is real but the measurement might have error. With this approach in mind, the Mizuno experience would play no role in showing or not showing that LENR is real. At best, it might provide a more reliable method to cause LENR. In addition, it would provide evidence to support one explanation of the process over another. The challenge now is to apply the burnishing method in the manner required to cause LENR. This goal is a challenge in the absence of knowing the important variables. So, I have taken the risk of showing how my model can help this process by identifying the important variables. If my model were correct and applied correctly, the Mizuno method would be found to work more reliably. Unfortunately, getting this understanding in the hands of people who are attempting a replication is very difficult. I can only hope that once replication succeeds, based mostly on luck, people will see what I proposed and use my approach to make the method more effective. Meanwhile, I suggest skepticism be directed away from LENR and applied only to the measurement.
In this last day of suggestions to the Team Google, I'd like to stress that a mandatory goal of the next investigation on CF is to avoid any negative outcome. A negative is not useful to anybody. Reporting a failure to measure any excess heat will be criticized by both the mainstream scientists, which could say that there was no need to waste money and time on this largely predictable outcome, and by the LENR fans, who will find many reasons to justify the negatives, like, for example, those reported in the recent ArXiv paper (1): "… possible reasons for negative results of 'cold fusion' experiments published recently by the Google-organized scientific group are given."
If Team Google is aimed at obtaining some excess heat, they are going to dig the umpteenth hole in the water and their work will be basically ignored by mainstream scientists and LENR fans and, this time, also by Nature.
It's necessary that their next paper begins with a positive declaration, something like: "We have succeeded in replicating the fundamental phenomenon observed by Fleischmann and Pons since 1986 and which led the research in Cold Fusion for the next decades. This phenomenon, called "positive feedback", has been largely discussed in many of their articles and is well documented in their 1992 video, which clearly show its dramatic effects on the electrolyte. We have been able to accurately replicate this phenomenon at will on a regular basis and we are now able to explain all its characteristics and the real source of the excess heat claimed by the 2 pioneers of Cold Fusion".
If Team Google wants to attract the attention of the mainstream science and avoid harsh criticisms from both CF supporters and deniers, they should carefully select the goal of their next study in order to be sure that it will be successfully achieved, that is that they will get a positive outcome, replicable by any other laboratory. IMO, the only goal which offers a 100% guarantee that will be achieved is the replication of the "positive feedback" phenomenon documented in the F&P video of the "1992 boil-off experiment".
And if anybody believes that Ascoli65 has any interest in seeing a successful replication please direct messages to me on how I can make you millions by helping out a Nigerian prince
Doing further transmutation experiments (as suggested by the above paper as being the missing part of the TG programme) would seem to be a good idea:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05211
These two Hungarian physicists seem to be really switched on to novel thinking about LENR which I suppose is a very positive result of TG's Nature paper shaking the stuffy old academics out of their usual SM torpor! Like the suggestion that ANY element can undergo transmutation at low kinetic energies (which has always been discounted by the increased Coulomb repulsion of nuclei with higher Z than say Li). A refreshing renaissance of ideas perhaps?
Based on our recent theoretical findings (Phys. Rev. C 99, 054620 (2019)) it is shown that proton and deuteron capture reactions of extremely low energy may have accountable rate in the case of all elements of the periodic table. Certain numerical results of rates of nuclear reactions of two final fragments of extremely low energy are also given. New way of thinking about low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) phenomena is suggested. Possible explanations for the contradictory observations announced between 1905-1927 and possible reasons for negative results of ’cold fusion’ experiments published recently by the Google-organized scientific group (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586019-1256-6) are given.
