Thank you axil . Why should we accept a simple explanation when we could have a complicated and probably un-provable one?
The reaction is very complicated. Preconceived expectations in experimentation can lead to misleading analysis. As I said up-thread, both fusion and vacuum decay might be happening concurrently. Such multiple causality is why sometimes a LENR researcher will see radiation, and neutrons, and sometimes no energy production is seen. I am certain this situation has occurred in your research. You just brush it off as a distraction.
The vacuum decay theory is provable because of the presence of the evidence of the electroweak unification associated with the vacuum reaction. When iron and rare earths are found as products of transmutation and no neutrons and gamma radiation or energy is detected, that is proof that fusion is not the cause of such transmutation. The researcher thinks that something went wrong with the experiment then he starts over from the beginning and looks for what he expects to see. What he doesn't expects to see is ignored as a failed experiment..
Unjustified expectations has lead to the failure of Holmild's company. Holmlid expected to see subatomic particles generated in his H(1) experimentation. But what he was actually producing was EVOs. Sveinn Ólafsson reports that no subatomic particles are produce in his Holmlid replication, but what he is actually producing is EVOs. When Sveinn understands that EVOs are produced by a superconductor, then his research and that of Holmlid will make sense.