Looking for LENR papers showing high energy per nucleon

Yes, AlainCo, that one, I have the complete paper. It is interesting because they used a calibrated neutron emission source instead of background for comparing the emission of neutrons of the experiments, they achieved high reproducibility. They also used Ni and Pd together in the cathode. But It won't upload here, I don´t know why.

Good Idea AlainCo, though, all good ideas are 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration XD

Quote from AlainCo

Just few good synthesis, review... (advised some time ago by Jed)

Cold Fusion (LENR) One Perspective on the State of the Science - M.C.H. McKubre

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

Some slides by Peter Hagelstein for an IEEE meeting

http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-co…gelstein-Talk-09-2015.pdf

And a review article by Peter Hagelstein again:

NEW PHYSICAL EFFECTS IN METAL DEUTERIDES

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf

another direction is to propose replicated papers.

for example

Excess heat evolution from nanocomposite samples under exposure to hydrogen isotope gases

https://www.researchgate.net/p…origin=publication_detail

and

Replication Experiments at Tohoku University on Anomalous Heat Generation Using Nickel-based Binary Nanocomposites and Hydrogen Isotope Gas

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_and_Hydrogen_Isotope_Gas

Since I'm not expert, maybe it is not correct, that is only a proposal...

I enjoy citing few lines of replication that have convinced me :

• Isoleribolic PdD electrolysis: F&P then Lonchampt
• PdD gas permeation: Fralick86, Liu 2004(?) Biberian (2005?), Nasa GRC 008 FRalick 2012
• Thin films: Iwamura 2002 , Toyota 2013

There are many other possible lines of replication that either I ignore, or some that I don't trust (by ignorance).

Maybe another game could be the "replications of the week"

The games I propose are the one I do personally, but it will be better to benefit from the crowd and competences.

But maybe is it just not useful, became in fact the people who can be convinced are just reading lenr-canr.org, and other will never be convinced.

My modest optimism is from the surprise to have been triggering interest on LENR for few people who in fact reacted quickly to few data, by searching further themselves, to confirm.

Display More

I really like your ideas, however from experience, people makes their mind much more by following experts than by reading themselves. If the first thing someone reads about LENR is one of the Shanahan papers, probably will not want to read anything else.

I think this is the main factor behind the lack of interest in the field, that it was publicly assasinated decades ago with great fanfare and very few people, normally, will look beyond that.

This paper was shared with me by one of the authors, it is not experimental per se but an analysis of what they call Deformed Space Time reactions, which applies to all experimental observations. I think their work has great insight, specially because with their theory they were able to progressively improve their experiments, and also because provides a much more general view of LENR and the conditions under which it can happen. I think, but this is just an intuition, that this team has got really close to define a series of conditions that need to be present to observe. They apply their DST approach to other known phenomena as well.

As part of my permanent search of literature I came acros with another nearly 100 years old Letter to editors to Nature from 1927, (from A. Smits) that talks about the efforts to discard that apparent transmutation of Lead into Mercury from 130.000 V sparking of the lead was mere product of contamination. It reports several replications detailing the methodological steps to be sure that the lead was mercury free. The rate of apparent transmutation is in the tenths of gram, but nevertheless the methodological details are interesting, and also the later possibility of having found a source of mercury contamination while still not being abe to explain the whole set of observations. The hesitant conclusions reveal a much more honest approach and the intent to find the truth no matter what.

I always find interesting these old papers that are much more "pristine" in their analysis and go to a great lenght to try to disprove the observation as an accident but upon failure to disprove it invite others to replicate and see for themselves. What a time was that to do science without any certainties and prejudgements.

SMITS, A. (1927). Transmutation of Elements. Nature, 120(3022), 475–476.