Quote

Certainly is fun going thru all these old papers - the amount of evidence for cold fusion and transmutations worldwide is staggering!

It should be noted that despite these papers are freely accessible and quite old already, we still have (nearly) no replications any of them - even from the side of cold fusion research community, not to say from mainstream physics. For example Reiko Notoya from Hokkaido university consistently claimed excess of energy during electrolysis of potassium carbonate at nickel electrodes, she called her results "extremely reproducible" and she even brought her electrolyzer to one of IEEC conferences for to demonstrate it live. Randell Mills and Niedra from NASA also confirmed them independently (with COP over 30!) - yet most of cold fusion researchers ignore these easy and cheap experiments as if nothing would ever happen.

The fear/disgust of replications is thus what cold fusion research and mainstream science research have in common. With such an ignorant attitude it's not surprising, that the dynamics of cold fusion research is as it is.

Agreed - quite remarkable really, the original 1991 Mills & Kneizys paper (which I suppose is his first announcement of H shrinkage or hydrino theory) was very positive and one would have thought lead rapidly to exploitation of this new energy source. The NASA paper did throw cold water on it though claiming re-combination as a large component of the measured EH. There were probably many other neg reps. But - isn't electrolysis of K2CO3 in some ways very close to what Holmlid is reporting these days? That he uses a K2CO3/Fe2O3 catalyst to form ultra dense H or D, (UDH/D) which is probably identical to the hydrinos formed/proposed originally by Mills & Kneizys?

In the presence of atmospheric nitrogen and excessively high pressures of hydrogen released at the cathodes its easy to understand now how these experiments were very variable (as were F&P's). We now are all agreed on what is the necessary first step in cold fusion - hydrino/hydroton/or UDH formation (see Wyttenbach's ICCF-22 abs) - so whatever the experiment electrolytic, gas - powder or plasma, if this first step is somehow blocked by other experimental conditions, no EH was observed. We now know from both Mizuno and Holmlid's recent data that low H or D pressure (100-300 Pa), prolonged reactor evacuation removing atmospheric nitrogen etc,, the presence of a metal oxide (KFeO2) catalyst, are necessary conditions without which UDH or hydrinos will either not be formed, or be formed but at very low levels.

Subsequent to UDH/hydrino formation - it does not seem to be generally accepted as to what happens next - but the levels of power released by BLP's Suncell (20-40 MW) and the power gain in Holmlid's proposed muon-catalysed reactor (X10000) suggest it must be nuclear - but to obtain these subsequent reactions, I think we are all agreed, we need another ingredient - photons, either in laser pulses or sustained IR from heating elements. Holmlid has very clear evidence that such stimulation with laser pulses releases mesons from the UDH and I propose that the same effect is stimulated by IR in Mizuno's R20 reactor case and by the intense electrical discharge in the Suncell or SAFIRE cases. Other ways of stimulating UDH to release mesons would include phonon-coupling, ultrasound or mirowave/RF stimulation- the end result being meson release which then decay to -muons. These are all highly exothermic nuclear reactions, proton fragmentation (which seems to be a spontaneous process when interproton distance <0.5 pm) about 300 MeV, subsequent muon catalysed fusions of H,D or T from order of 1 - 10 MeV. So, if all the necessary conditions for UDH/hydrino formation and subsequent stimulation to form -muons and the fusion reaction chain is maintained, massive fusion energy release from relatively simple cold fusion experiments are possible. On occasions, run-aways, such as the well known Thermacore event when a kilo of H-saturated Ni powder went up in smoke are probably examples of what happens when cold fusion is optimized.

Quote

It is clear the problem of LENR denial is not scientific method, but social psychiatry

IMO the problem is in both as scientific method is deeply hardwired with psychology of scientists: we can just dispute how much scientific method gets violated or pushed by social psychiatry. The contemporary scientific method is based on answering HOW instead of WHY questions and on tendency to deny and ignore anomalies until they provide solid theoretical ground (i.e. job for theorists too). The highest profile papers like Nature or Science even don't admit any experimental papers without underlying theory by now. One can call it violation of abstract scientific method (which has been actually never applied) or working methods of contemporary science - but the fact remains, these practices contribute to ignorance of cold fusion research as well.

After all, the method which provides no tools prohibiting its own violations is only simulacrum of method as it lacks principal feedback. We are both lacking methods how to prohibit scientists in doing unethical or even dangerous research, both methods how to motivate / convince scientists into doing really useful research. It's more than evident that community of scientists behaves like selfish gene and society has nearly no control over it, despite most of scientists are payed by society from mandatory fees. In biology such a case is called parabiosis and parasitism.

And if you raise a snake, expect to get bitten.

We're Incentivizing Bad Science: Current research trends resemble the early 21st century’s financial bubble

Are we aware of this thread posted on ECW recently. "Berkley labs table top pulse plasma experiment". Unfortunatley can't insert the link with my smartphone.

https://e-catworld.com/2019/10…producing-fusion-at-will/

Quote from Curbina

Cavitation-induced excess heat in deuterated metals. Final report

This is quite old cheese. (in fact the oldest one, when Russ George first time helped Roger)

Here you find the large 4-He reference (well hidden..). https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRwhenbubble.pdf

And a newer more systematic one https://www.semanticscholar.or…2833230dfe70b63217cc3ed9f Also in ISCMNS VOLUME 24.