Ed Storms Pre-print on Cold Fusion, Materials and Gaps. Comments Please!

    Already you start with a false premise. Chemistry is a mean only a mean..

    Again you talk about "sites" so should they be "stiff" and how much ? A friend said me a day.. use your brain :)

    i would like to help you because i like and respect you. i know the answers to all your questions. now i don't ask you to believe me, after all i may be another one moron. Btw, i do my own experiments to give substance to what i said.


    good luck to you.

    Quote from Storms

    Let's talk about theory. Cold fusion occurs in a chemical environment. Therefore, the process MUST play by the rules that govern chemical behavior.

    That sounds a clear and proper starting point.


    Although I think "chemical properties" might need some further characterisation.


    For example chemical would normally imply electron/electron interactions with energies a few eV max.


    Whereas one might argue that surface phenomena, especially with radiative stimulation, could be more energetic than this, with energies way above those associated with chemical bonds. So I think for your starting point to be complete it will be necessary to extend a bit from the normal definition of "chemical" to include plasmonics. You might be considering that part of chemistry.


    I am not sure, in this case, whether the laws of thermodynamics do apply. But I guess it depends how you define them.


    Anyway this qualification does not have much effect on the material science issues: I guess I wanted to qualify what you said because you were very definite and in that case it is important to be precise: that chemical properties here is considered in a broad sense.


    In other words, a theory that starts with QM being applied to the nuclear process is bound to fail.


    While I agree with you it does not seem a promising starting point: I don't think it is bound to fail. For example QM + nuclear theory could lead to the observation that a specific resonance increases reaction rate at a given energy, and that could then be tested and perhaps be one part of the reason for LENR. In that case working from the middle outwards would still have some merit.


    That was not a hypothetical example, as I'm sure you know.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I don't see that a ball pack "is real" or "is not real" determination can be helpful when there is as yet not definitive theory "is real" attaches to.

    Theory is never needed in science. What is real is defined by experiment, not theory.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I refuse to answer the question "is LENR real" when it is not well defined.

    Oh come now. It is extremely well defined. Cold fusion is the production of heat without any chemical fuel or chemical changes. It produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as one D+D plasma fusion reaction. It often produces tritium in various ratios. It produces x-rays, which can be detected close to the cathode. It produces orders of magnitude more energy than any chemical device of equivalent mass could produce. 10,000 times more in some cases.


    Because Pd-D cold fusion produces helium in the same ratio as D+D plasma fusion, and no chemical changes, we assume it is nuclear fusion of deuterium. What else could it be? What is your hypothesis?


    (Okay, I know your hypothesis: thousands of professional scientists have been making mistakes for 30 years doing things they were trained to do. You believe that the Reactor Safety experts at BARC, whose lives depend on detecting tritium, are incapable of detecting 10E16 atoms of tritium. In short, you think the experimental method does not work.)


    Fleischmann and Pons spelled out exactly what cold fusion is in their first paper. I suppose you have not read it. They wrote:


    "Enthalpy generation can exceed 10 W cm-3 of the palladium electrode; this is maintained for experiment times in excess of 120 h, during which typically heat in excess of 4 MJ cm-3 of electrode volume was liberated. It is inconceivable that this could be due to anything but nuclear processes."

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

    Chemical behavior, as described by the Laws of Thermodynamics, is the bedrock basis for describing anything that happens in a material. Other ideas can be applied, such as plasmonics, as you suggest. Indeed, physics has created a large vocabulary that can be used to describe certain special conditions. So, let's not apply these just yet. Also, QM applied to chemistry is entirely different from QM applied to a nuclear process because the energy differs by a factor of over a million. This difference is important.


    The applied energy is a separate issue. The D must first get into the material. That is a chemical process. Several D must assemble at the same location at the same time. That is a chemical process. After they have assembled, the site can be subjected to many different kinds of treatment, each of which will cause different effects.


    So, let's focus on the most simple condition because fusion can be made to occur without applied energy and not just at the surface.


    In order for an atom of D to move from its normal position in PdD to a new location, the process must result in a loss of Gibbs energy. In other words, the D in the final site must be more energetically stable than when it was in the initial site. You will immediately object because you will point out that atoms move by random processes without this requirement. That is true. In this case, the initial and final sites have the same energy. Therefore, the atom can quickly move out of the site and into a different site. Fusion requires at least two D remain at the same location long enough for other processes to happen. Therefore, an unusual condition at the site must keep at least two D in close contact for a nonrandom time. Are we in agreement so far?

    Quote from Cydonia

    Those who are speaking continually about xsh or COP never understood nothing.

    If someone have the choice to fill his car tank by a 10% less expensive fuel, he will do that.

    Now if this special low cost fuel can start the engine only one time on 2, finally the customer will prefer using the more expensive, ever.

    All these things to say if you aren't able to replicate what you argue full time, your device, your words, your expectations will never have an over value..

    Oh come now. Everyone understands that! We all know that cold fusion will never be used if it cannot be controlled and made into a reliable source of energy.


    Countless other technologies began as extremely hazardous, uncontrolled phenomena. They were useless until people learned to control them. The first European handguns and cannons in the 14th century were so unreliable, they often exploded and killed the person firing them instead of the enemy. It took 30 to 50 years before they became practical. The first Diesel engines exploded. The first Benz automobile was hardly practical. Aviation began 1908. In the first 3 years, there were 33 fatal crashes, killing ~3% of all pilots. By 1912, 191 pilots had been killed. Anthony Fokker wrote: "Every flying field I have known is soaked with the blood of my friends and brother pilots. . . . My memory is one long obituary list."


    The fact that cold fusion is unreliable now has no bearing on whether it can -- or will -- become a practical source of energy. It probably can, but that will take billions of dollars of R&D. It will earn back those billions every month it is used, probably from now to the end of human history. So the cost will not matter.



    If you are saying that efforts to make a practical device now are premature, I fully agree! People who are trying to achieve a high COP now, in the hope of developing a practical device in the near future, have no knowledge of history. Or safety regulations. Or public opinion. That is a foolish waste of time. Researchers must first convince large corporations and governments that the effect is real. The corporations and governments will spend the billions of dollars needed to make cold fusion practical. No inventor or researcher working on his own could do that, any more than the Wright brothers could have made a Boeing 737, or Robert Goddard could have built a manned rocket that could reach the moon.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Theory is never needed in science. What is real is defined by experiment, not theory.

    1822 Faraday's motor

    "technological transformation"

    that a certain imperial circuitologist is seemingly ignorant of

    Michael Faraday's electric magnetic rotation apparatus (motor)
    The first surviving Faraday apparatus, dating from 1822, demonstrates his work in magnetic rotation.
    www.rigb.org

    theory defined 50 years later

    A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism - Wikipedia
    en.wikipedia.org

    Quote from Storms

    The applied energy is a separate issue. The D must first get into the material. That is a chemical process. Several D must assemble at the same location at the same time. That is a chemical process. After they have assembled, the site can be subjected to many different kinds of treatment, each of which will cause different effects.


    So, let's focus on the most simple condition because fusion can be made to occur without applied energy and not just at the surface.


    In order for an atom of D to move from its normal position in PdD to a new location, the process must result in a loss of Gibbs energy. In other words, the D in the final site must be more energetically stable than when it was in the initial site. You will immediately object because you will point out that atoms move by random processes without this requirement. That is true. In this case, the initial and final sites have the same energy. Therefore, the atom can quickly move out of the site and into a different site. Fusion requires at least two D remain at the same location long enough for other processes to happen. Therefore, an unusual condition at the site must keep at least two D in close contact for a nonrandom time. Are we in agreement so far?

    I will leave off the terminological argument - it distracts! To answer your question I will say what I understand from your comments.


    You are adding here the idea that multiple D need to be at the same location for fusion. to happen.


    That is plausible - for D+D fusion. But there are other possible fusion reactions in a Pd/D system. E.g., where D reacts with the Pd nuclei. Or, in principle, where 2 X D are catalysed by Pd nuclei (this seems implausible to me - but the LENR is something not understood so maybe it can't be ruled out).


    I am personally in favour of anyone wanting to be more precise as to LENR mechanism - which your statement above implies. I think to make your position clear you need to state explicitly the additional assumptions you make - together perhaps with the experimental evidence that you think shows those assumptions are correct.


    Re energetically more stable. That is technically not the case - if we have two energy levels E1 and E2 for D in a lattice then in equilibrium the fraction of of D in each level is determined according to the Boltzmann distribution. And movement is possible with increase in binding energy. (But see my next comment for a get-out).


    An unusual condition at the site must keep at least two D in close contact for a nonrandom time. I think here you are introducing an idea of kinematic stability (outside of thermodynamics) e.g. you want the D to exist in a given energy state for a relatively long period of time. In this context an energy level lower than all adjacent, and a low enough temperature, will provide stability, and make sense of the energetically more stable comment? I may have misunderstood what you are saying here.

    Jed's comment here is reasonable and a great illustration two things where he and I disagree - and tellingly they are linked.


    Start with the first more general argument:


    Theory is never needed in science.


    I disagree. In fact theory is always needed in science. This is because science is about being able to predict the future of the world from its past. Experiments alone, without some type of inference, do not say anything about the future.


    A trivial example.


    I press a button on a black box, a 1 digit led screen flashes for 1 second each time: 1,1.


    What would a scientist make of this box? Without theory: nothing. There is no way to guess at future behaviour.

    • With theory: the simplest one is simply - black boxes have stable behaviour over time. It predicts whenever you press the button 1 will be displayed.:
    • With a different theory (the black box looks like an electronic simulation of a die, which would be 6-sided numbers 1 - 6). The prediction would be a random number in the range 1 - 6.
    • With a more complex different theory which the fact that two 1s have been thrown makes it more likely - this is a simulation of a weighted die where 1 is more likley to come up than any other number.

    Jed will point out that more experiments would distinguish between these theories. Very true. But no number of experiments will be able to prove any theory, and extra information, or lateral thinking, could give a better one.


    Suppose the black box next gives us: 9, 6, 3, 8, 7, 3, 3, 4? (the complete sequence from switching it on: 1, 1, 9, 6, 3, 8, 7, 3, 3, 4

    theory 1 : it is uniform in range 0 - 9

    theory 2: it is uniform in range 1 - 9


    Those two theories predict (stocahstically) the next throw. Neither looks very strongly evidenced, but there is nothing obviously better to say...


    Except there is. The sequence shown happens to be the even digits of pi, base 10. That could be a coincidence, but it is easily proven (or disproven) by more observations.


    The point is that we have multiple theories to explain the black box. Some are inherently more likely than others. I did not choose the theory "the black box repeats the sequence 1,1,9,6,3,8,7,3,3,4 forever" even though that is a perfectly goiod theory for its operation that might be correct and which is 100% compatible with the experiments so far.


    Now, that is perhaps a silly example: you will say that physics is not like a black box with some unknown electronic mechanism inside controlling an LED.


    In fact, the need for theory is even stronger when interpreting experimental results. That is because we use theory to make sense of the experimental equipment. A click on a Geiger counter? We think this indicates an energetic particle. To make sense of an experiment we use layers and layers of well established theories which allows us accurately (or perhaps accurately in terms of statistics) to predict from readouts on equipment what is "really happening" in our apparatus.


    In the case of LENR. The hypothesis of nuclear reactions is strengthened by very many results results showing:

    • excess heat above expected chemical possibility as inferred from difference between control and active runs in various types of calorimeter
    • correlation of low-level (well below atmospheric) He and excess heat in selected (how?) experimental results
    • excess low-level tritium found in other experiments
    • clusters on CR39 film after etching that resemble those from alpha particles.


    and maybe other things (add your fave LENR-attributed anomalous result).


    It is weakened by very many results showing

    • almost no detection of high energy particles or radiation
    • no (as yet) replicable long-term excess heat production.
    • excess energy production only found as a fraction of energy input. (a priori we would expect some cases - as with a thorium TNG - where excess heat out could be maintained with zero power in)

    To reach a judgement: does the evidence for LENR outweigh the evidence against, we need a lot of different theories:


    (1) Theory - the standard physics which says that only nuclear reactions can transform elements.

    (2) Theory - the idea that chemical reactions are inherently limited by the chemical binding energy in lattices (or molecules) and that we have a known upper bound for what that could be

    (3) Theory - some theory of nuclear reactions that shows He product from D (or whatever) input with no ionising particles or radiation that would (theory) be detectable by typical detection systems.

    (4) Theory - lots of stuff about why the active and control runs in the calorimeter behave the same way as far as heat is concerned, so the calorimetry is known to be accurate.



    Statement 2.

    Fleischmann and Pons spelled out exactly what cold fusion is in their first paper. I suppose you have not read it. They wrote:


    "Enthalpy generation can exceed 10 W cm-3 of the palladium electrode; this is maintained for experiment times in excess of 120 h, during which typically heat in excess of 4 MJ cm-3 of electrode volume was liberated. It is inconceivable that this could be due to anything but nuclear processes."


    You suppose wrong Jed: and I think you know that. I maintain that statement is not a definition of cold fusion. It is one early anomaly studied by F&P and their conclusion (because they could not think of any other reason for it) that this anomaly was explained by nuclear reactions.


    Personally, if everyone here was on board with some of the modern detailed D/Pd electrolysis FPHE replication results, e.g. Staker2023 I would reckon we had a clear phenomenological statement of an anomaly that, as with F all those years ago, it is difficult to imagine deriving from anything other than fusion. If we reckon that 10% replicable excess heat is correctly measured (I won't repeat the issues there). And of course that comes down to - again - a lot of detailed theory on how the calorimetry works, what are the possible low-level errors, etc.


    But I believe Staker is directly contradicting Ed. I hope for resolution of this. My point in this post is that the resolution will come from theories in addition to experiments. And while those using the word LENR are all over the place in what phenomena are examples of it, we do not have a clear phenomenological definition - as F&P thought they had.


    THH


    PS - ironically, of all those posting here, I am more in favour than most of narrow definitions of LENR along the lines that F&P suggested. However, I agree with Jed, any such definition must survive experimental results.

    In order to reach a goal, we need to follow a consistent path without detours. I know that other nuclear reactions can occur. But first, we need to understand at least one of them. I'm first focusing on the D+D fusion reaction because this reaction has the largest rate compared to the other observed reactions.


    The concept of chemical stability is simple. In the absence of energy barriers, stability is achieved when the atoms are in their lowest energy state with respect to any other chemical arrangement. For example, PdD will remain a cubic crystal forever at room temperature even though you can imagine other crystal arrangements. The D atoms will stay in their assigned places in their sublattice forever if the conditions are not changed. When in their assigned places, the D nuclei are too far apart to fuse. Consequently, the D atoms must leave their assigned places and move to a different location where they can get closer. This can only happen when the new location is more energy stable than the old location. This is a fact that should not require debate. If this is not understood, I suggest you consult a text on physical chemistry.


    The first problem is to identify this new location. Some people propose metal atom vacancies can contain several D that can get close enough to fuse. Other people suggest dislocations or phase boundaries or the surfaces of small particles. Each of these locations is produced in a material by different treatments. Therefore, in order to cause LENR, we need to know which treatment to apply. Also, each location has different chemical characteristics that can either help or hinder the fusion process.


    I have identified the required location as gaps having a critical dimension. My papers attempt to show how this location is consistent with all of the observed behavior. I can show why each of the other locations fails based on theoretical arguments, but this would be too complex to address here.


    So, can we agree that gaps are the location and move on to the next level of understanding?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I think you mean in some cases, leaks did not correlate with excess heat.


    We can go through Miles's methodology in detail and see what is possible.

    THH, we are way beyond "leaks". Please watch this movie about Miles' research.

    Leaks were quantified - the leaks during sample transit - by the worlds top helium expert. There were no leaks in the apparatus by design. Designed by experts in this field. Thank you for taking note of this fact.

    Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems Melvin Miles The Correlation of Excess Heat and Helium
    Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems Melvin MilesThe Correlation of Excess Heat and HeliumNavy LENR Research SeriesFilmed in Wolf Creek, Oregon, US August...
    youtu.be

    Quote from rubycarat

    by the worlds top helium expert.


    Miles TM 21.30" the chance of that happening just by random is 1 in 750,000 "


    but there is a small possibility that there is a leak.. :)


    MilesTM 18.50

    "a fourth reason that I left out is that we're assuming everything is due to D plus diffusion

    but there might be a side reaction forming tritium for example "


    or transmutation e.g D + Pd105 >> Ag107? >>Cd109 etc

    I think Biberian found some fossil evidence

    there would be some Q value..of course .less than 23 Mevs

    but the total would be made up to 23Mevs or so if for example

    Ag107 then reacted with another D to form "alpha" and regenerate Pd105

    net effect D+D>>>He..


    Q-Value Calculator (QCalc)

    orsova


    Thank you for your contribution. I have just had a very speedy read, and there are some interesting comments there. Style, vocabulary, and grammar are personal choices (see I used what is called -in the UK at least - an 'Oxford comma' there) but in the end clarity is important. I hope to look at your piece more closely over the weekend.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    orsova


    Thank you for your contribution. I have just had a very speedy read, and there are some interesting comments there. Style, vocabulary, and grammar are personal choices (see I used what is called -in the UK at least - an 'Oxford comma' there) but in the end clarity is important. I hope to look at your piece more closely over the weekend.

    Your point is well taken, and reasonable minds can absolutely differ. It's intended in that spirit.

    Quote from Storms

    The first problem is to identify this new location. Some people propose metal atom vacancies can contain several D that can get close enough to fuse. Other people suggest dislocations or phase boundaries or the surfaces of small particles. Each of these locations is produced in a material by different treatments. Therefore, in order to cause LENR, we need to know which treatment to apply. Also, each location has different chemical characteristics that can either help or hinder the fusion process.


    I have identified the required location as gaps having a critical dimension. My papers attempt to show how this location is consistent with all of the observed behavior. I can show why each of the other locations fails based on theoretical arguments, but this would be too complex to address here.


    So, can we agree that gaps are the location and move on to the next level of understanding?

    Agreed lets move on!


    Happy with your wish to leave complex stuff off this thread.


    It would be very helpful if, while doing that, you had one post referencing the relevant papers with detail and summarising (one para) your reasons for preferring gaps over vacancies etc?

    Quote from rubycarat

    THH, we are way beyond "leaks". Please watch this movie about Miles' research.

    Leaks were quantified - the leaks during sample transit - by the worlds top helium expert. There were no leaks in the apparatus by design. Designed by experts in this field. Thank you for taking note of this fact.

    https://youtu.be/KM82RW7_II4

    Hi Ruby,


    I don't want to let arguments over He derail this thread. Just a note:

    • Leaks during transit - I was not considering those - they would not correlate with excess heat - and i'm happy for experts to be sure they are not significant
    • No leaks in apparatus by design. That is good, but two things. (1) the leaks needed here to admit measurable He are incredibly tiny - and "no leaks" is a physical impossibility (you get diffusion through anything eventually). I'd check the video but prefer written write-ups which are more informative and make it easier to check references. (2) No leaks by design. Sure, but we all no that the world is not perfect.

    Details (all of them) matter when measuring such extremely small qtys of He, thousands of times below atmospheric He, and accumulated over long periods, in a system which contains H (or D) and runs messily (sic - not a v scientific expression but you know what I mean) for a long time. I am like the whole LENR community - I don't trust what experts say although unlike some in LENR community I do not dismiss it either. So I'd welcome detailed discussion of He evidence again (I'm sure we have done it before but i do not remember that we had enough detail to answer yes or no to your and others "this evidence is absolutely indisputable" view).


    I'd also point out - it does not (for me) matter. Whether anyone now believes LENR is real or not is really not the point. The point is how to get enough info about the effect to understand and replicate it, as Ed is saying he has made progress with. If that pans out - LENR is real. if it does not pan out - you can never be sure LENR is not real but you are back to square 1.


    There are some on this site who adopt a sort of political tribe-based view about for or against LENR, and label contributors here according to beliefs. I don't see any need myself to do that. I am positive about some varieties of LENR (as defined here). By that I mean that the evidence published I understand and do not doubt is correctly interpreted, replicable, and positive, I am willing to be optimistic about the unknowns and hope it could be useful. That does not stop me from being cautious about all the types of evidence that don't meet that standard.


    I would point out (Rossi) the merits of being cautious. While Rossi is a self-professed liar and I do not expect anyone in the LENR field to be that, under-promising and over-delivering is a good policy in life generally and especially when claiming new science that could be useful but is not yet that.


    Explained here at some length because I'd like those here not close-minded to see that there can be merits in an approach that might seem boringly negative. For example, I do not tell Jed he is delusional, or stupid, or a liar, because he disagrees with me. I can sort of understand it - he is just more certain than me about many things, and particularly about experts. I've noticed he is more certain that me about stuff (COVID vaccines etc) other than LENR. But if you have his judgement - all of the classic LENR evidence is so certain that anyone not agreeing this must be wrong.

    Quote from Storms

    When in their assigned places, the D nuclei are too far apart to fuse. Consequently, the D atoms must leave their assigned places and move to a different location where they can get closer. This can only happen when the new location is more energy stable than the old location. This is a fact that should not require debate. If this is not understood, I suggest you consult a text on physical chemistry.

    Sorry to go on about this: but I like precision.


    I can agree this comment in the case that we are talking about lattice transformations between stable states. The definition of solids is that positions of atoms are stable, so your statement would be exactly correct if we consider the Pd electrode purely a solid. However the D will diffuse into Pd and therefore is less stable than a normal atom in a solid. In a system in thermodynamic equilibrium we expect some fraction (according to Boltzman distribution) of the D to be in locations "less energy stable". D is clearly not in thermodynamic equilibrium inside a Pd lattice during electrolysis, but it has a relatively high movement rate as quantified by its diffusion constant. So it is a sort-of in between system, not an ideal solid.


    I am not disagreeing with your comment, just qualifying it.


    It might seem an unnecessary qualification, but I think not. There are many reactions that happen because atoms are sometimes in a less energetically favoured state than is typical, for example. And given LENR is not understood its mechanism might be unexpected.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    There are some on this site who adopt a sort of political tribe-based view about for or against LENR, and label contributors here according to beliefs. I don't see any need myself to do that. I am positive about some varieties of LENR (as defined here). By that I mean that the evidence published I understand and do not doubt is correctly interpreted, replicable, and positive, I am willing to be optimistic about the unknowns and hope it could be useful. That does not stop me from being cautious about all the types of evidence that don't meet that standard.

    After all these years going back to the ECN's days you still don't get it. Even after being told repeatedly by the likes of Storms, Rothwell, and others that they know what they are doing, you continue on as if they are novices who need to be walked through the scientific method.


    Everything you have said, or recommended, they know, and account for, or have done. They collaborate on methodology, and technique. For 33 years they have attended conferences and exchanged ideas, As has been said repeatedly, many are experts in their field, and could teach you a thing or two.


    Now, Ed is part of the old guard. Like all from that era, he has "been there, done that". They do not need any more of your kind of preaching. There is however, a new crop of researchers (thanks in large part to the old guard keeping the science alive) from the USNavy, Army, NASA, HERMES, CleanHME, and many more, who may be more willing students of what you have to offer.


    They are still on a learning curve, and with your solid background in what has been going on in the field (both the good, and the bad), they may learn from what you have to say.


    My suggestion is to target them, and give the old timers the respect they deserve.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Theory is never needed in science.


    I disagree. In fact theory is always needed in science. This is because science is about being able to predict the future of the world from its past. Experiments alone, without some type of inference, do not say anything about the future.

    That is utterly incorrect. Until 1952, genetics has no theoretical basis. It was entirely predicated on observations and statistics. The nascent theories -- that the genome is stored in proteins -- turned out be incorrect. Yet genetics was a highly developed science. It was very useful. See, for example, Castle, W.E., Genetics and Eugenics (1921).


    Genetics and Eugenics
    www.google.com


    Before 1600 there was no theoretical basis for any science. There was no knowledge of atoms, the laws of motion, heat, energy or bacteria. Yet people were able to build large cities, circumnavigate the earth, and forge steel. Today there is no theoretical basis for many phenomena, such as the variation of decay rates, or high temperature superconducting, but no one claims these things do not exist.


    As Schwinger said, "have we forgotten that physics are empirical?" And "has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?"


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


    Yes, apparently some of us have forgotten. THH never learned this in the first place.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    "Enthalpy generation can exceed 10 W cm-3 of the palladium electrode; this is maintained for experiment times in excess of 120 h, during which typically heat in excess of 4 MJ cm-3 of electrode volume was liberated. It is inconceivable that this could be due to anything but nuclear processes."


    You suppose wrong Jed: and I think you know that. I maintain that statement is not a definition of cold fusion. It is one early anomaly studied by F&P and their conclusion (because they could not think of any other reason for it) that this anomaly was explained by nuclear reactions.

    Cold fusion is an anomaly! That is all it is. An experimentally confirmed anomaly is all you need in science. It is 100% true, as much as Newton's prism.


    Since cold fusion produces heat without chemical changes, and helium in the same ratio as D+D plasma fusion, obviously it is nuclear fusion. There is no other plausible hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that hundreds of professional scientists cannot do their jobs, and the world's top experts in tritium at BARC, Los Alamos, the PPPL and elsewhere cannot detect massive amounts of tritium. That is extremely implausible, to say the least. You have never given us a reason to believe what you say, or a single example of a mistake these experts might have made, so there no evidence for your belief.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.