Off topic warning! Please remember the title of this thread and make your posts appropriate to that topic. Theoretical speculation is better done in another thread.
Why not move the associated non 'Glamour' posts to an alternate LENR theory thread? There seems to be interests in this subject.
As a first step, I suggest a thread where administrators or member given the honorary assignment post highlights from all threads. It should include "among the best old posts" and "recent posts worth more attention". Member should be admonished not to post to this thread but to the original threads. Such a thread could then lead to the desired breakthrough and could be use by newcomers as a guide or authors to create a guide.
If we could keep every thread on topic, that accomplishes much of what you suggest. Sounds simple to Moderate, and certainly we have tried, but invariably threads wander around and it is just hard to consistently enforce. Sometimes pushing too hard to stay on topic kills the thread by making it less active, and it slips off the front page into the thread graveyard under the "Boards" section of the forum.
So any claims that the presence of those products prove that D+D fusion is occurring, due to high deuteron static loading, do need to be supported with some extra evidence.
As far as I know, helium is only produced when deuterium is present, so it must be coming from deuterium fusion. Not Pd fission or anything similar. Apparently, hydrogen can also cause cold fusion, but no one knows what the products are. No one has looked.
I do not think anyone claims it is caused by high deuteron static loading. That was the original hypothesis but it is no longer claimed.
About Glamour to avoid an out of topic, i checked the Glamour's meaning by Google.
That means "sophisticated charme".
In this way, i don't remember to have seen this kind of behavior in the field.
The only one candidate i have seen, was during the Assisi ICCF where an Hagelstein bearded friend was dressed as a woman by a floral dress.
I let you be the judge to know if it's glamor or not 
It seems that is fashion in Massachusetts. Is it the same in Florida Shane D. ?
Back to glamour...
Last night I tried giving a (zoom) presentation about LENR to members of my local Makerspace group, as part of our regular monthly meeting. It was all a bit of an experiment, from my point of view, just to see what the response would be - since most of the members actually have an arts background.
Interestingly, they had never heard of "LENR", and even when I explained what it stood for, it still didn't mean anything. However, they had all heard of "Cold Fusion", and that certainly did elicit some interest - and quite positive interest at that.
One problem I did have was in overestimating the level of knowledge that everyone might have of any kind of nuclear process. Many words, phrases, and concepts that people with a strong technical background take for granted were either unknown or appeared to be relatively meaningless jargon. I must admit I got a little flustered at times, trying to second guess what they might or might not understand. Note that these are not just "Joe Public", either. They are all graduates, at minimum (one even has a PhD in art, and also does some lecturing).
Interestingly, trying to explain some of the events, and reasons behind the various controversies, seemed a little pointless - as it didn't appear to elicit any strong feelings one way or the other. So maybe our natural annoyance, and feelings of injustice, over past events don't really mean much anyone outside the field.
I shall be following this up at a later date, after my small audience have had some time to think about it (that is if they think about it at all). So whether they think this is a glamorous topic, I don't really know yet.
Last night I tried giving a (zoom) presentation about LENR to members of my local Makerspace group, as part of our regular monthly meeting. It was all a bit of an experiment, from my point of view, just to see what the response would be - since most of the members actually have an arts background.
Well done you. It's a very difficult pitch- I have done similar things. I felt that I would have done just as well speaking in Koine Greek.
QuoteInterestingly, they had never heard of "LENR", and even when I explained what it stood for, it still didn't mean anything.
Is NASA's LENR endorsement merely a spin cycle to attempt to clean their hands of past suppression?
Back to glamour...
Last night I tried giving a (zoom) presentation about LENR to members of my local Makerspace group, as part of our regular monthly meeting. It was all a bit of an experiment....
I had a similar experience when starting to do real work for LENR.
check here:
My (our) focus was more to give some support to help building or improving equipment needed for doing experiments.
I think challenging is the explanation of the phenomenon itself, especially in a simple way, since no generally accepted theory exists.
Due to marketing and "political" reasons I try to avoid the N (nuclear) word, because it tends to shy off people, especially in my country.
One problem I did have was in overestimating the level of knowledge that everyone might have of any kind of nuclear process. Many words, phrases, and concepts that people with a strong technical background take for granted were either unknown or appeared to be relatively meaningless jargon.
If I may suggest . . . have them read the first chapter of my book, written by Gene Mallove and me. We wrote it as an introduction to the field for the general public.
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf
My video, an even easier introduction:
For people with more technical knowledge, McKubre's introduction:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
Interestingly, trying to explain some of the events, and reasons behind the various controversies, seemed a little pointless - as it didn't appear to elicit any strong feelings one way or the other.
I see no point to discussing the controversy. EXCEPT to say it was a misunderstanding and unfortunately in some ways it lingers to the present day. (That is not true; the topic still produces red hot anger in many scientists, but why should we say that? Let those scientists fulminate if they wish to.)
Is NASA's LENR endorsement merely a spin cycle to attempt to clean their hands of past suppression?
Who knows? Who cares?!? Whatever their motivation may be, I am happy to see their support. I don't give a hoot about their motivation or ulterior motives (if any).
"Glamour" is a poor choice.
Excitemen?
Following from my previous post:
I just spent a bit more time with the mocked up website I put together:
(password:electronscreened)
and updated the theme to a custom one that I had on hand. I think it looks a bit nicer now. Though there are still things I would tweak/change (the landing page, for instance, might be better off with a short blurb or a zappy quote from one of the elder statespeople of the field, rather than a feed of giant images).
In my prior post, I emphasised the creation of new content, but there's no reason why the ISCMNS website couldn't be updated and populated with only the current website's content.
Indeed, though the process would be monotonous, I'd be happy to volunteer time to doing this.
I'm not a web designer, but I do have experience using web design tools, and I don't think it would be too difficult at all.
I imagine the process could look something like this:
1. A web developer is hired and they are briefed on the project.
2. The current website is backed up in its entirety, so that any destructive changes can be undone if things go awry.
3. Following this, all directories bar the JCMNS are moved into an 'archive' folder such that, for example:
iscmns. org / meetings / Asti / gallery04 /
becomes
iscmns. org / archive / meetings / Asti / gallery04 /
4. At the same time, all of the html code of the archived website is updated to insert the /archive/ directory into its hyperlinks, so as to keep all navigation functions of the archived site intact.
5. Now, with a relatively clean and tidy home directory, a copy of Ghost could be installed by the web developer. A reminder that Ghost is free and open source.
6. From there, it would simply be a matter of installing a theme, and using the back end of Ghost to port over the content of the old website, organise the layout and design of a new website, and create the links back to the archived content that is to be preserved. This would really just be an elaborate exercise in organisation and copy -> paste.
The great benefit of Ghost is its modularity. It would make updating the website in the future and adding additional content straight forward. And, as I mentioned in my previous post, it has a tiered system of administrator permissions so that a group of people could work together to keep the site running smoothly.
It also has deep newsletter integration, and so email addresses can be collected with ease, and important news items and / or newsletters can be effortlessly disseminated.
I would be happy to volunteer time to do this final step of porting all the content across and building the layout of the new website, if such a course of action were deemed appropriate. The only cost would be in hiring a developer to do the technical work, but I don't think that would be too onerous.
Here is part of the Glamorization project. Mainstream journalism is becoming a little more friendly toward cold fusion. So, various people have suggested we try to publish a letter or an op-ed in a major newspaper. Here is a draft we have come up with. We hope to publish this with as many signatures as we can muster, especially signatures from prominent scientists.
I welcome suggestions.
Appeal version 2
Notes
This is either a letter to the editor or an op-ed. An op-ed would be better.
I do not think a newspaper would want to publish this version with all the endnotes. They can be deleted. They can appear in the Extended Online Version.
I want to avoid controversy and rancor. The tone should be upbeat.
I hope everyone in the field agrees with the technical assertions in this document.
Paragraph 4. I could add many more to this list, such as people with university research facilities named after them (Yeager and Arata), but I think this is enough.
Ref. [8] is on p. 13-3.
The purpose of the Technical Addendum is to make scientists and engineers enthusiastic about cold fusion. Friendly, open minded scientists. Neither the letter nor the Addendum is meant to convince skeptics. That is a waste of time.
The Technical Addendum outline lists my reasons for wanting cold fusion. Perhaps readers here have other reasons, or a more technical approach that you think will appeal to scientists.
Does anyone know whether any Japanese government agency is presently funding cold fusion? If so, is there a website or online reference to it?
- Jed
DOCUMENT
We urgently need your help!
A new source of fusion energy has been discovered which could bring an end to burning fossil fuels and produce pollution-free, carbon-free energy in unlimited amounts. We refer to cold fusion (the Fleischmann-Pons effect). This was announced in 1989. [1] It caused great controversy at first. By late 1990 the discovery was widely replicated in dozens of major laboratories, and many positive results were published in major scientific journals. The results showed that cold fusion is a real nuclear effect, and that it could become a practical source of energy.
Unfortunately, some early attempts to replicate failed, and many scientists jumped to the conclusion that the effect is not real. Electrochemist Prof. Heinz Gerischer, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin, described this misunderstanding in 1991: [2, 3]
“In spite of my earlier conclusion, — and that of the majority of scientists, — that the phenomena reported by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 depended either on measurement errors or were of chemical origin, there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys.”
Hundreds of other distinguished scientists replicated the experiment and published similar positive assessments. These included the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, [4] the author of the leading textbook on electrochemistry, [5, 6] a Fellow of the China Lake Naval laboratory, [7] the designer of the Tritium Systems Test Assembly at Los Alamos, [8] and many, if not most, of the world’s top electrochemists. [9]
Cold fusion is still a laboratory scale phenomenon. It is not yet well understood, so it cannot be fully controlled. If we learn to control it, we can probably scale it up. It has achieved power levels of 100 W lasting for 30 days continuously, at temperatures and power densities comparable to a fission reactor core. [10] Cold fusion produces thousands of times more energy than any chemical reaction, with no chemical fuel. It produces no carbon dioxide, and unlike nuclear power plants or plasma fusion tokamak reactors, no dangerous radiation or radioactive waste. There is enough cold fusion fuel on earth to power civilization for billions of years.
In short, cold fusion could halt global warming, and give everyone access to as much clean energy as they need, while ending our use of oil and fossil fuel. Even better, cold fusion is closer to becoming a practical source of energy than plasma fusion tokamaks or advanced fission, and it is far cheaper and safer than these alternatives.
A great deal of technical progress has been made since 1989, and mainstream acceptance is growing. The DoE is now funding cold fusion research, [11] and so are the government energy research agencies in the EU [12] and Japan. NASA, the U.S. Army and Navy researchers announced important breakthroughs this summer. [13-15] Japan’s largest boiler manufacturer hopes to have prototype cold fusion reactors in a few years. [16] But DoE funding is only $10 million per year. Much more is needed if we are going to make rapid progress, to end the energy crisis and stop global warming. Many enthusiastic young researchers want to begin research in this field. We should fund them, and encourage them. There is still lingering opposition to the research, and ignorance of its importance, because of the unfortunate misunderstandings in 1989. We must put that behind us.
We need scientists and science-literate members of the public to make the case for cold fusion, and to urge legislators and decision makers to support research. It is not certain that cold fusion can be made practical, but it is likely. The cost of doing this would be trivial, and the benefits will be immeasurable.
See:
The Online Extended Version of this letter [URL], which includes references to the scientific literature and more technical detail.
McKubre, M.C.H., Cold Fusion (LENR) One Perspective on the State of the Science. [URL]
Hagelstein, P.L., et al., New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides. [URL] This paper includes 130 references.
LENR-CANR.org, a library of 1,900 scientific papers on cold fusion
[Signatures]
EXTENDED ONLINE VERSION
Technical Addendum Outline
Cold fusion was widely replicated, often at high signal to noise ratios. Examples.
Reasons to believe cold fusion is real: heat, helium, tritium (Storms list).
In a few experiments, cold fusion has achieved power density comparable to a fission reactor core. (Specific numbers). This proves it is possible to make cold fusion into a practical source of energy.
It is compact. It does not need shielding. It does not need a fuel distribution network; all of the fuel can be added during manufacturing. This makes it ideal for distributed generation and vehicle propulsion. [Cite NASA paper about aircraft?]
The materials used in cold fusion cells are not expensive or rare. Temperatures and power density are high enough that conventional heat engines can be used with it. These engines will be optimized for low cost because the fuel is thousands of times cheaper than fossil fuel. Therefore, the cost of electricity, mechanical power, and vehicle propulsion will be roughly 20 times less than fossil fuel, wind, solar, or nuclear power.
References
1. Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. 261: p. 301 and errata in Vol. 263 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf.
2. Gerischer, H., Memorandum on the Present State of Knowledge on Cold Fusion, J. Bockris, Editor. 1991 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf.
3. Gerischer, H. Is Cold Fusion a Reality? The Impressions of a Critical Observer. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion". 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SIFthescience.pdf#page=480.
4. Iyengar, P.K., Preface and Summary, in BARC Studies in Cold Fusion, P.K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan, Editors. 1989, Atomic Energy Commission: Bombay http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IyengarPKprefaceand.pdf.
5. Bockris, J. and A. Reddy, Volume 1: Modern Electrochemistry, Ionics. Vol. 1. 2002, New York: Springer.
6. Bockris, J., A. Reddy, and M. Gamboa-Aldeco, Volume 2: Modern Electrochemistry, Fundamentals of Electrodics. Vol. 2. 2001, New York: Springer.
7. Miles, M., K.H. Park, and D.E. Stilwell, Electrochemical calorimetric evidence for cold fusion in the palladium-deuterium system. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1990. 296: p. 241.
8. EPRI. NSF/EPRI Workshop on Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Metals. 1989. Washington, D.C.: Electric Power Research Institute http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf.
9. Will, F.G., Groups Reporting Cold Fusion Evidence. 1990, National Cold Fusion Institute: Salt Lake City, UT http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf.
10. Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf.
11. U.S. Department of Energy Announces Up to $10 Million to Study Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions. 2022, ARPA-E, U.S. Department of Energy https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news…-study-low-energy-nuclear.
12. Clean Hydrogen Metal Energy consortium. 2020, European Union’s Horizon2020 Framework Programme http://www.cleanhme.eu/.
13. Benyo, T. A Theory for Transmutations Observed as a Result of Deuterium Gas Cycling of a Palladium Silver Alloy. in ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit. 2022. Mountain View, CA: NASA Glenn Research Center, USA.
14. Barrowes, B. New US Army LENR Replication Efforts: HIVER Co-deposition and Gas Loading. in ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit. 2022. Mountain View, CA: US Army Corps of Engineer, USA.
15. Barham, O. US Navy HIVER an Active Solid-State Energy Research Program. in ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit. 2022. Mountain View, CA: US Navy NSWC-IHD.
16. Hayashi, M. Clean Planet: New Future: Inventing an alternative to fire. in ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit. 2022. Mountain View, CA.
As I said, I assume a newspaper would not want to include all those endnotes. Maybe a newspaper would not want the link to the Extended Online Version. In that case, perhaps it would be a good idea to leave all those endnotes. If we can. They enhance credibility, especially for scientists. I like to think of a skeptic or a lukewarm uncommitted scientist saying to himself at first, "this is all bullshit!" And a little later reading . . .
Atomic Energy Commission: Bombay.
J. Electroanal. Chem.
NSF/EPRI Workshop on Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Metals.
New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology.
ARPA-E, U.S. Department of Energy
European Union’s Horizon2020 Framework Programme
NASA Glenn Research Center, USA.
US Army Corps of Engineers, USA.
US Navy NSWC-IHD.
And perhaps, for once, thinking, "umm . . . maybe those people know more than I do?!?"
Me Glamours John Hutchison interviewed by the one and only Bob Greenyer.
But LENRs are truly glamorous!
Are we not living an exciting quest? Do we not have before us a magnificent problem, a formidable challenge?
I really experience it as an exciting movie, as Hollywood could shoot in Technicolor, and I am happy, dear friends, to participate in this quest for the Holy Grail by your side.
LENRs have posed practical and theoretical problems to researchers for more than 30 years.
Clearly, we are faced with a complex phenomenon, the complexity of which is comparable to that of the problems encountered in biology.
As an example, let us cite research on Alzheimer's disease, which has not obtained conclusive results for more than 30 years. (The genetics of brain aging was my specialty.)
In the field of oncology, despite undeniable progress over the past 60 years, we are still waiting for a breakthrough comparable to the invention of antibiotics in the fight against infections.
Another example from the field of biology: the fundamental molecular and cellular bases of memory and consciousness are far from reaching consensus in the field of neuroscience, despite what NEURALINK researchers say.
This unsuspected complexity, added to the constant indifference of official academic science towards the LENRs is a calamity, but paradoxically, it also constitutes an opportunity for researchers like us who would have no chance of being on the advanced front of an exciting discipline if the big universities and big companies had taken an interest in it.
So let's take advantage of this situation and appreciate it at its true value: to be seated halfway up a mountain that we are the only ones to have tried to climb is both uncomfortable, because we are hungry there, we have cold and sore feet, but on the other hand, we enjoy a view that no one has seen since creation.
Take advantage of it and give thanks to the Lord.
Display MoreHere is part of the Glamorization project. Mainstream journalism is becoming a little more friendly toward cold fusion. So, various people have suggested we try to publish a letter or an op-ed in a major newspaper. Here is a draft we have come up with. We hope to publish this with as many signatures as we can muster, especially signatures from prominent scientists.
I welcome suggestions.
Appeal version 2
Notes
This is either a letter to the editor or an op-ed. An op-ed would be better.
I do not think a newspaper would want to publish this version with all the endnotes. They can be deleted. They can appear in the Extended Online Version.
I want to avoid controversy and rancor. The tone should be upbeat.
I hope everyone in the field agrees with the technical assertions in this document.
Paragraph 4. I could add many more to this list, such as people with university research facilities named after them (Yeager and Arata), but I think this is enough.
Ref. [8] is on p. 13-3.
The purpose of the Technical Addendum is to make scientists and engineers enthusiastic about cold fusion. Friendly, open minded scientists. Neither the letter nor the Addendum is meant to convince skeptics. That is a waste of time.
The Technical Addendum outline lists my reasons for wanting cold fusion. Perhaps readers here have other reasons, or a more technical approach that you think will appeal to scientists.
Does anyone know whether any Japanese government agency is presently funding cold fusion? If so, is there a website or online reference to it?
- Jed
DOCUMENT
We urgently need your help!
A new source of fusion energy has been discovered which could bring an end to burning fossil fuels and produce pollution-free, carbon-free energy in unlimited amounts. We refer to cold fusion (the Fleischmann-Pons effect). This was announced in 1989. [1] It caused great controversy at first. By late 1990 the discovery was widely replicated in dozens of major laboratories, and many positive results were published in major scientific journals. The results showed that cold fusion is a real nuclear effect, and that it could become a practical source of energy.
Unfortunately, some early attempts to replicate failed, and many scientists jumped to the conclusion that the effect is not real. Electrochemist Prof. Heinz Gerischer, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin, described this misunderstanding in 1991: [2, 3]
“In spite of my earlier conclusion, — and that of the majority of scientists, — that the phenomena reported by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 depended either on measurement errors or were of chemical origin, there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys.”
Hundreds of other distinguished scientists replicated the experiment and published similar positive assessments. These included the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, [4] the author of the leading textbook on electrochemistry, [5, 6] a Fellow of the China Lake Naval laboratory, [7] the designer of the Tritium Systems Test Assembly at Los Alamos, [8] and many, if not most, of the world’s top electrochemists. [9]
Cold fusion is still a laboratory scale phenomenon. It is not yet well understood, so it cannot be fully controlled. If we learn to control it, we can probably scale it up. It has achieved power levels of 100 W lasting for 30 days continuously, at temperatures and power densities comparable to a fission reactor core. [10] Cold fusion produces thousands of times more energy than any chemical reaction, with no chemical fuel. It produces no carbon dioxide, and unlike nuclear power plants or plasma fusion tokamak reactors, no dangerous radiation or radioactive waste. There is enough cold fusion fuel on earth to power civilization for billions of years.
In short, cold fusion could halt global warming, and give everyone access to as much clean energy as they need, while ending our use of oil and fossil fuel. Even better, cold fusion is closer to becoming a practical source of energy than plasma fusion tokamaks or advanced fission, and it is far cheaper and safer than these alternatives.
A great deal of technical progress has been made since 1989, and mainstream acceptance is growing. The DoE is now funding cold fusion research, [11] and so are the government energy research agencies in the EU [12] and Japan. NASA, the U.S. Army and Navy researchers announced important breakthroughs this summer. [13-15] Japan’s largest boiler manufacturer hopes to have prototype cold fusion reactors in a few years. [16] But DoE funding is only $10 million per year. Much more is needed if we are going to make rapid progress, to end the energy crisis and stop global warming. Many enthusiastic young researchers want to begin research in this field. We should fund them, and encourage them. There is still lingering opposition to the research, and ignorance of its importance, because of the unfortunate misunderstandings in 1989. We must put that behind us.
We need scientists and science-literate members of the public to make the case for cold fusion, and to urge legislators and decision makers to support research. It is not certain that cold fusion can be made practical, but it is likely. The cost of doing this would be trivial, and the benefits will be immeasurable.
See:
The Online Extended Version of this letter [URL], which includes references to the scientific literature and more technical detail.
McKubre, M.C.H., Cold Fusion (LENR) One Perspective on the State of the Science. [URL]
Hagelstein, P.L., et al., New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides. [URL] This paper includes 130 references.
LENR-CANR.org, a library of 1,900 scientific papers on cold fusion
[Signatures]
EXTENDED ONLINE VERSION
Technical Addendum Outline
Cold fusion was widely replicated, often at high signal to noise ratios. Examples.
Reasons to believe cold fusion is real: heat, helium, tritium (Storms list).
In a few experiments, cold fusion has achieved power density comparable to a fission reactor core. (Specific numbers). This proves it is possible to make cold fusion into a practical source of energy.
It is compact. It does not need shielding. It does not need a fuel distribution network; all of the fuel can be added during manufacturing. This makes it ideal for distributed generation and vehicle propulsion. [Cite NASA paper about aircraft?]
The materials used in cold fusion cells are not expensive or rare. Temperatures and power density are high enough that conventional heat engines can be used with it. These engines will be optimized for low cost because the fuel is thousands of times cheaper than fossil fuel. Therefore, the cost of electricity, mechanical power, and vehicle propulsion will be roughly 20 times less than fossil fuel, wind, solar, or nuclear power.
References
1. Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. 261: p. 301 and errata in Vol. 263 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf.
2. Gerischer, H., Memorandum on the Present State of Knowledge on Cold Fusion, J. Bockris, Editor. 1991 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf.
3. Gerischer, H. Is Cold Fusion a Reality? The Impressions of a Critical Observer. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion". 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SIFthescience.pdf#page=480.
4. Iyengar, P.K., Preface and Summary, in BARC Studies in Cold Fusion, P.K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan, Editors. 1989, Atomic Energy Commission: Bombay http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IyengarPKprefaceand.pdf.
5. Bockris, J. and A. Reddy, Volume 1: Modern Electrochemistry, Ionics. Vol. 1. 2002, New York: Springer.
6. Bockris, J., A. Reddy, and M. Gamboa-Aldeco, Volume 2: Modern Electrochemistry, Fundamentals of Electrodics. Vol. 2. 2001, New York: Springer.
7. Miles, M., K.H. Park, and D.E. Stilwell, Electrochemical calorimetric evidence for cold fusion in the palladium-deuterium system. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1990. 296: p. 241.
8. EPRI. NSF/EPRI Workshop on Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Metals. 1989. Washington, D.C.: Electric Power Research Institute http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf.
9. Will, F.G., Groups Reporting Cold Fusion Evidence. 1990, National Cold Fusion Institute: Salt Lake City, UT http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf.
10. Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments Run at IMRA Europe. in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf.
11. U.S. Department of Energy Announces Up to $10 Million to Study Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions. 2022, ARPA-E, U.S. Department of Energy https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news…-study-low-energy-nuclear.
12. Clean Hydrogen Metal Energy consortium. 2020, European Union’s Horizon2020 Framework Programme http://www.cleanhme.eu/.
13. Benyo, T. A Theory for Transmutations Observed as a Result of Deuterium Gas Cycling of a Palladium Silver Alloy. in ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit. 2022. Mountain View, CA: NASA Glenn Research Center, USA.
14. Barrowes, B. New US Army LENR Replication Efforts: HIVER Co-deposition and Gas Loading. in ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit. 2022. Mountain View, CA: US Army Corps of Engineer, USA.
15. Barham, O. US Navy HIVER an Active Solid-State Energy Research Program. in ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit. 2022. Mountain View, CA: US Navy NSWC-IHD.
16. Hayashi, M. Clean Planet: New Future: Inventing an alternative to fire. in ICCF24 Solid-state Energy Summit. 2022. Mountain View, CA.
Hi Jed,
Find attached some potential edits from me. My language could be tidied up a little, but the general thrust of what I sense could be tweaked is there. Whether or not they add to the document I don't know, but I have the sense that an opening paragraph structured like mine is potentially an alternative way to orient the reader. Though I note that you want upbeat, and I might be skirting that requirement a little.
There is a current problem, we would like to send out more regular newsletters, and after some sparring with Google bought a paid subscription to Mailchimp. Potentially this could reach over 3000 people, plus another 500 or so journalists who we have a slightly elderly email list for. But once again time to get to grips with the mailing process is a problem for us. The newsletters have to be smart and professional, or we won't send them out. Content is not the problem, we can generate that. it's the mailing system we need help with.
If you or another member could commit to helping with formatting content and newsletter delivery via Mailchimp it would be a huge help. You know where to find us!
Hi Alan,
Regrettably, I can't. I have more free time than usual at the moment so can volunteer in the way I've offered, but it would be remiss of me to make an ongoing commitment. In the not too distant future, my workload will pick up again and I might disappear for a while. I also have no prior experience with Mailchimp.
"Glamour" is a poor choice.
Excitemen?
How about consistency with current scientific theories.
I just watched on YOUTUBE Sabine Hossenfelder's video "Cold Fusion Is real" accompanied by a glass of Cabernet Ruby from California (Long Wood) and I enjoyed it. (The video. The wines we drank in Mountain View were much better than this cheap Californian wine bought in France.)
This video poses the problem correctly, with frankness, without complacency or animosity. I suggest you to watch it.
