Cavitation (sonofusion) reactor from B-J. Huang et al.

Quote from Cydonia

Are these results revolutionary ? No

That is debatable. IMO though, LENR suffers more from neglect by their colleagues in mainstream science, than from lack of progress in the lab. I believe the LENR community has taken this as far as it can with the limited resources it has had to work with, and now needs the full support of the mainstream to fill in the final pieces of the puzzle.

This is where Huang's work may play its most important role. This is from yesterday's article:

"the official paper was published in the internationally renowned journal Nature - Scientific Reports in January 2024. This is the first time in 30 years that a cold fusion paper has been published in a mainstream scientific journal, and has been downloaded more than 14,000 times, ranking in the top 1.8% of the world's papers, and has been included in the National Library of Medicine (NIH) (National Institute of Health) in United States, and reported by The Academic, a foreign online media."

Quote from Cydonia

Now, on engineering side, i consider more usefull, simple the use of cold plasmas rather than the complex cavitation way

Just imagine that you use ultrasound (or lower frequency audio sound) to create a fluidised bed of dancing nickel particles in a hydrogen atmosphere, and then surround the dancing particles with a high voltage coil to induce a current in them. What might happen?

All have to follow their own believes

Quote from Alan Smith

Just imagine that you use ultrasound (or lower frequency audio sound) to create a fluidised bed of dancing nickel particles in a hydrogen atmosphere, and then surround the dancing particles with a high voltage coil to induce a current in them. What might happen?

More Cavitation Thoughts -ICCF-18 : Max Fomitchev-Zamilov, Quantum Potential Corporation - From Ruby Carat's site.

Max Fomitchev-Zamilov was wise to focus on hydrodynamic or cavitation bubbles. I imagine that this method should be as effective if not more effective than cavitation by heat exchange. Max has a new company and new goals.

Microscopic Thermonuclear Fusion – Maximus Energy

He has on his site the following.

Critical Review of Bin-Juine Huang et al. Paper – Maximus Energy

Although, Maximus Energy claims to be open to LENR, they seem to reject any mechanism which would claim fusion outside the Lawson criterion.

I refute Maximus Energy critical review of Bin Juine Huang et al Paper.

The objective of science is organizing data and generalization of nature principles. Causative natural principles are sought from which one can predict with high probability effects which have as high a correspondence as possible to as much of the data as possible. The objective of science should align with the objective of an experiment. Good science looks for good probabilities. If the data is in the noise, then, one should look for better data.

Maximus Energy claims “the real objective of an experiment is not to capture an ‘interesting’ result, but to spend hours, days, weeks and months on proving these result to be wrong.” It seems to me that such an objective means the experiment’s data is in the noise.

If the heat inputs and output are large values accurate to many decimal places, a COP value is significant. Hence, at three decimal places of significant an average of 1.05 compared to an average of 1.36 is very significant.

Maximus Energy’s review makes a good point about the amount of neon-22 produced. It is so low that B J Huang et al had to use several methods to establish that “neon-22 and CO2 really exist in the output gas from reactors determined to have excess heat.” Further, Huang et al found oxygen-17 in water, in oxygen gas and in carbon dioxide. Further, these isotopes were detected in the absence of neon-20 and neon-21.

The detection of oxygen-17 and neon-22 is significant. Neon-22 occurs with only 8.8% natural abundance as an isotope of neon. Further, oxygen-17 occurs with only a 0.037% natural abundance as an isotope of oxygen. Further, B J Huang did not detect either neon-20 or neon 21. These the other isotopes of neon would be detected if the neon was sourced from atmospheric gas. Further, neon is only 0.0018% of atmospheric gas. Hence, the significance of detection of oxygen-17 and neon-22, suggests that the probability that neon-22 and oxygen-17 are from sources other than transmutation is vanishingly small.

Maximus asks where the RGA mass spectrum is that shows the neon-22. It is in the B J Huang paper in figure 9. One needs to admit that the amount of neon-22 is very small. One supposes that the dominant reaction that produces the excess heat is not due to neon-22 production but due to the production of oxygen-17.

It could be that B J Huang et al did not feel comfortable explaining all their results. Look at spectrum Maximum Energy highlights but does not explain. The expected singlets of nitrogen, oxygen and water and the expect doublets of nitrogen and oxygen should be at 14,16, 18 (with no 19) and 28 and 32 amu. I would assign the amu peaks as 15, 17, 18, 19, 29 and 33. The effect is that singlets and doublets are shifted-up by one amu.

The reaction here is that which I have found by mass balance and stoichiometry, the Kidman reaction. The Kidman reaction produces new compounds. Hydrogen which has a string rather than an electron (string-hydrogen) may cause a local gravity well about the hydrogen. Gaseous nitrogen, oxygen and water fall into this gravity well. The effect is that singlets of nitrogen, oxygen and water shift-up by one amu and doublets of nitrogen and oxygen also shift-up by one amu.

To understand string-hydrogen you should read most of the pdfs I have posted here . Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.