Well Fabrice thank you, but i have to say this way is already over.
i'm strongly studied this way but aren't able to well excite a H/D before interacting with the metal lattice.
Your fusion diode is more relevant but should be used in a reverse spirit, not to recover XSH but rather to initiate it 
Very interesting links.
Reihani - Fork
Microwatt Resolution Calorimeter
The money spent over the last 30 years amounts to sparrow's tears, as they say in Japanese.
Can I squeeze an Amen in here? https://youtu.be/MqYLl7tRRdg
Re Jed's comments about pressurised electrolytes, I came across this paper by Irv Dardik of 'superwave' fame - presented at ICCF 10. Towards the end of the paper, a pressurised reactor is described, but I have been unable to find if it was ever built and tested.
I don't know if it was ever made.
I wasn't actually advocating the use of pressurized liquid cold fusion cells as practical devices. I suppose gas loaded ones have more promise, for the reasons discussed here. Especially the higher temperatures. I was only pointing out that it is possible to make liquid devices that work at temperatures above 100°C. They would resemble pressurized water fission reactors (PWR). Which are not the safest gadgets around. They are not ideal. Something like a dry pebble bed fission reactor would resemble a gas loaded cold fusion reactor, with similar advantages. Many serious nuclear power plant accidents, such as Three Mile Island and Connecticut Yankee, were caused by plumbing problems. Things like pipes getting clogged up, valves getting stuck open, or leaks.
I do not see how a book has anything to do with answering Trevithick's question. How about we keep posts in the thread they belong.
Very good point Shane. I have moved these 5 posts to the Useful Book thread.
David Nygren repeated Matt's question: "What should we do next?" This is an interesting question as the team sponsored by Google was not able to produce positive results (e.g., correlation of heat with helium, or tritium, or neutrons, or gamma radiation). The negative results do not appear to be supportive of the technology area, and may have influenced negative statements about cold fusion/LENR obtained when using google to search on these terms. Then, What should we do next? Since there are already many positive results developed by others in over 30 years of research, and the climate crisis has been recently-recognized, it should now be possible to use Google's influence to convince government managers that cold fusion/LENR is the best approach to solve this crisis.
Why is it necessary to convince government managers?? The reason is that various types of expertise and the resources from many US R&D companies will need to be involved. A government organization will need to coordinate their work through a formally-managed development program.
A government organization will need to coordinate their work through a formally-managed development program.
This is now done by the free mason connection headed be Industrial heat folks. They control & finance all teams.
So be care full telling them your secrets.
>You said: "Wet chemistry F&P replication is limited to a temperature of ~100C."
I read this thread and I found that few researcher could not understand the mechanism of FPE.
FPE is just the D absorption.
So it need the very high temperature to trigger cold fusion.
FPE use Pt wire cage and it cause the potential variation on Pd Rod, and very high electric stress cause the insulater deposition so,
Surface of Pd Rod is covered with inhomogeneous film thickness and has the segment of with-insulating layer, and without insulating layer. shown in Fig. B,C,D.
and this insulating layer growth cause the voltage input of cold fusion cell to keep the electric current constant.
So the current is concentrated on the opening region of Pa Rod, and cause local high heating and higher temperature.
So FPE need the very high temperature to trigger the cold fusion.
I sent this info to him.
This (pressurised electrolysis) would be a new field. A couple of things come to mind, most particularly that many chemical and (potentially) electro-chemical redox reactions change completely when you go over 100C. So you might have to create a new fuel system and use novel electrolytes to avoid the unexpected.
With the recent pathetic demonstration of Rossi creating more controversy about the feasibility of cold fusion, a re-think of the direction of the LENR movement is needed to make a crucial breakthrough. After 30 years of trying to get a low energy fusion device, Rossi seems to have come closest, but with lots of smoke and mirrors and associated disbelief.
As a newcomer to the LENR forum, I see a lot of re-iteration of theories and promising ideas that are fairly circular without leading anywhere: hence this stream titled 'What should we do next ?'.
I think that Takaaki Matsumoto stated that he only made advances when he became less focused upon the calorimetry side of his experiments. Perhaps, as suggested by Alan Smith, a look at higher temperature and pressure experiments would seem to be a good thing and, with significantly lower levels of neutron production, they won’t resemble pressurized water fission reactors in terms of nasty side effects (neutrons) and thus energy production cost.
The term 'pressurised electolysis' might be a bit restrictive: perhaps Low Temperature and Pressure (LTP) would be more inclusive.
To me as a newbie, there seems to be an unmistakable obsession with the fusion aspect of LENR, when the by-product elements of Takaaki Matsumoto’s experiments could well be fission related. I would suggest that the possibility of low temperature fission be given more attention within LENR.
With large unstable atoms, fission nuclear chain reactions would seem to be triggered and maintained by neutrons. Could not similar nuclear chain reactions triggered by electrons and/or ball lightning occur for far smaller, more stable elements such as potassium, iron, palladium and copper to produce fission products with minimal neutron production. The possibility of LTP fission and fusion reactions should be on the board at all times until one such interpretation leads to the desired low cost, low neutron LENR power generation.
And unless the LENR group can find the required answers, nobody will in the near future.
I think that Takaaki Matsumoto stated that he only made advances when he became less focused upon the calorimetry side of his experiments.
Well, Matsumoto I'm not, but I have also resisted going down the calorimetry rabbit-hole, even though I have done plenty in the distant past (for the Smokeless Fuel Suppliers Association) . In the aim for rapidity and simplicity I have always preferred relative thermometry (RT) and 'hot and dry' LENR. RT is where you build two systems as identical as possible, calibrate/adjust them to be even more alike and then run one as a control and the other as a test system- swapping the test fuel package over if it helps. Any difference in temperature or heater power consumption for an equivalent temperature suggests 'something is happening'.
David Nygren
Opened a good topic, as for me. We have everything and pressure is the main thing! This requires good capacitors of 1000 microfarads and higher voltages up to 30 kilovolts. Then we will get fission in metals and liquids, which I fill to obtain ball nodules, which were formed from ball lightning underground and I want to carry out them in my experiments! Guys, help me get a good high-voltage capacitor, the last ones flew. We do not have our high-voltage voltages at all, we need to get it!
To me as a newbie, there seems to be an unmistakable obsession with the fusion aspect of LENR, when the by-product elements of Takaaki Matsumoto’s experiments could well be fission related. I would suggest that the possibility of low temperature fission be given more attention within LENR.
With large unstable atoms, fission nuclear chain reactions would seem to be triggered and maintained by neutrons. Could not similar nuclear chain reactions triggered by electrons and/or ball lightning occur for far smaller, more stable elements such as potassium, iron, palladium and copper to produce fission products with minimal neutron production. The possibility of LTP fission and fusion reactions should be on the board at all times until one such interpretation leads to the desired low cost, low neutron LENR power generation
Are there any fission reactions for these "more stable" elements you mention that would release energy, given their respective binding energies? I would think the first step would be to identify the possible fission reactions/transmutations that could release energy. I was under the impression their were not. This is why the fusion into these more stable elements creates energy in the stars in the first place, and is why they are more stable.
Taking McKubre's point: maximising excess heat is not likely to be fruitful, because as an anomaly it is remarkably uninformative, and if we do not now have a lab rat experiment that is clearly not explainable without nuclear reactions (or some other more exotic energy source) it is not likely that will come without understanding of whatever effects generate it.
So those who think CMNS has important questions that need answering should concentrate on working out one such question and answering it.
If you don't think CMNS has such questions then there is no science to do.
If you do think there are such questions, as a scientist, you can explore them.
Observing the work, there seems no agreement as to what are the unanswered questions - in the sense of science to do.
There are fascinating theoretical suggestions, some within current theory, some positing new physics, any of which if true would justify a whole load of new science and potentially technology.
There are fascinating experiments which, if replicable, would be difficult to explain without LENR (or something less plausible).
Maybe what would help is a frank discussion, amongst those knowledgeable, of what are the real scientific questions.
What does not help much is theoretical speculation based on a specific apparent, but frustratingly non-replicable, experimental anomaly.
For me there is stuff to do with the exact surface properties of solid metal hydrides which is certainly interesting, and better understanding in that area would make LENR associated with such systems, if unexpected (by science outside the LENR community) effects easier to measure and understand. I note that the google people, not surprisingly, did some work in this direction.
I think good science comes from being interested in open questions. Noticing and identifying experimental anomalies is always interesting, but it is not science unless the process can be replicable with a scientifically interesting answer.
If it is the overall set of heterogeneous anomalies that comprises LENR evidence I'd reckon clear demarcation between those that are not LENR, and those that are, would help - looked at from the outside there is too much distraction. If no-one can agree what is distraction then I suggest CMNS is not a scientific field, at least as defined by the set of people who now think it is.
THH
PS - I don't think Rossi's continuing lack of credibility is reason to change any view - but then I never (given initial problems with his demos, and problems with his unwillingness to close holes in them or stick to any one system) felt that his noise was a positive for LENR.
Matsumoto’s and many others results are compatible with reactions that involve multiple nucleons simultaneously in a complex matrix of fusion - fission reactions. The Parkhomov tables provide a good tool for assessment of the likelihood of the possible results based on the elements present and, at higher temperatures, the role of slow neutrinos. The likelihood is based on the energy available from each reaction.
I don't know how to insert a photo, it doesn't work. And you behave normally, I really can't insert them ...
I don't know how to insert a photo, it doesn't work. And you behave normally, I really can't insert them ...
But you can delete the photo...
Ок
