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

  • There were no leaks.

    If you are claiming a leak, say where. You are no expert. If you say there is a leak again, then say where.

  • Yes, QED is the conventional explanation. However, it is based on a single kind of electron interaction, i.e. the planet-Sun model. Mills has proposed a different model that has better predictive power. His model is rejected by conventional science for the same reason LENR is rejected.

    I think this is probably OT for this thread. However I do not think your second sentence above is correct - and I hope your third sentence is wrong.

    • QED (quantum electrodynamics) is a theory of electromagnetism which generalises Clerk-Maxwell's theory which itself generalises previous theories of electrostatics and magnetism.
    • It is therefore what Jed would consider a (pretty) fundamental theory.
    • It does not make any assumptions about a planet-sun model. As a theory of electron interaction, because it incorporates quantisation and is intrinsically a many-particle theory, it is far from a planet-sun model.
    • QED predicts with exquisite accuracy from a very simple fundamental set of rules (no fudges) an enormous number of experimental results. Basically everything that involves electrons and electromagnetic fields including photon creation/anhihilation. It specialises to electromagnetism and special relativity.

    I don't know who here has compared Mills's GUT with QED. The former is inconsistent with physics (and indeed self-inconsistent) [1]. Many people have looked at it sympathetically and found it does not work: e.g. [2]. The experimental evidence which Mills claims supports it has been very severely critiqued [3]. From that reference:

    Mills bases the theory and conclusions on the apparent observation of novel lines. In this communication, we will not discuss his theoretical excursion but focus only on the claimed experimental spectroscopic observations in [4]. In figures 2–4 of [4] spectra are shown which are obtained from helium–hydrogen discharges in the spectral range 18–50 nm and 6–50 nm, respectively, displaying indeed ‘lines’ not previously observed. However, both spectra were recorded employing a 0.2 m normal incidence spectrometer of a modified Seya–Namioka design, McPherson model 302. According to the authors the instrument covers a wavelength region 2–560 nm, which is definitely impossible. Already the manufacturer quotes the wavelength range to 30–550 nm, and every book on vacuum-UV spectroscopy, see for example [5], explains that because of the low reflectance of gratings and mirrors spectra below 30 nm cannot be detected anymore. It is known that platinum besides gold has the highest reflectance at short wavelengths, but it is already below 0.075% at 10 nm [6]. Observation of lines at 8.29 and 10.13 nm (figure 4) is simply impossible with this instrument: the observed lines therefore must be artefacts. How these come about can only be clarified by looking at the internal setup of the instrument at the specific settings of the grating. The authors also show a spectrum of the same spectral range from pure helium discharges recorded with a grazing incidence instrument, lower trace of their figure 2, which is best suited for this wavelength region. The reader can only wonder why this instrument was not employed for the investigation of the helium–hydrogen discharges searching for novel lines!

    The latter is fundamental - beautiful - Feynman called it "the jewel of physics", and has the merit that it generalises previous theories and hence automatically inherits validation from all the experimental evidence supporting them.

    [1] Rathke, A. (2005). A critical analysis of the hydrino model. New Journal of Physics. 7. 127. 10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/127.

    [2] Khelashvili, A. and Nadareishvili, T., “Dirac’s reduced radial equations and the problem of additional solutions”, International Journal of Modern Physics E, vol. 26, no. 7, 2017. doi:10.1142/S0218301317500434.

    [3] H-J Kunze 2008 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 41 108001DOI 10.1088/0022-3727/41/10/108001

  • Hello Dr. Storms,

    Do you think quantum mechanics is a predictable theoretical framework for explaining these phenomenon?

    It seems as though there is a wide variety of observable phenomenon in the electron studies alone to describe reactions, but perhaps I am incorrect.
    I'm not sure how separating the sciences of standard chemistry, organic chemistry, quantum chemistry, nuclear chemistry, etc. is that important as long as we can find the cause of this particular phenomenon?
    There is all kinds of dynamic interactions of electrons, protons, and neutrons in different orbital configurations that range from a finite field to the macro field, surely that we can agree on?
    From countless experiments up to the particle colliders these things seem to be our best approximations on the microscopic scales of things. Perhaps these type of reactions can actually explain more accurately the cosmos, as it relates to yet unknown energy states of subatomic excitations?

    One hypothesis is this is some type of cyclical chemical reaction and perhaps that is what you are suggesting?

    Or maybe it is as Matsumoto suggests as a electron collapse or expansion with high phase shift between boundary layers of a material?
    If a small enough concentration of electromagnetic energy occurs, like a concentration of bundled electrons, it has been suggest it could interface with hydrogen bonds to more readily coalesce in novel ways? This could easily just be a case of transforming energy across different ground state changes just like it is well documented in nuclear science observations. To me it seems it would not violate any laws of thermodynamics/electrodynamics and follow Gibbs Free Energy in characterizing the systems of energy. It would simply open us up more to the possibilities of efficient conversion of energy states using metamaterials that interface with denser energetic mediums. When the potential energy gets converted it does work, what type of work we want it to do is perhaps an even more important question?

    I really think you are onto something with nanoscopic wave guides hypothesis. Some years ago I started using nanoparticulate carbon with a Ni cathode plasma electrolysis reactor of KOH and distilled light water. I noticed a significant increase of reaction speed at a lower power supplied using hydrodynamic flow and nanoparticulate graphitic structures. I cannot verify any excess in thermal emissions as the experiment has given me great challenges in heat detection.
    From all the research I have done on your work, I have never come across plasma induced experiments?
    Have you ever attempted to get calorimetric measurements on an electrolytic plasma?
    Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
    Thank you for all your work in this field, it is greatly appreciated from "lab rats" like myself.

    Kind regards,


  • There were no leaks.

    If you are claiming a leak, say where. You are no expert. If you say there is a leak again, then say where or shut up.

    We cannot ask THH to point to the physical location of his hypothetical leak. Not precisely. The papers show that a leak could not have been in the collection flask, because they held the same pressure and showed the same amount of helium when tested several times months apart. So the leak would have to be in the cell or the hose. What we can ask him to do is explain why the leak did not produce random levels of helium far above the 3 to 4 ppb in cells that produced no heat, and ~7 ppb in cells that produced heat. What kind of leak does that? Point to an expert who says that is possible. The ones I have heard from, including Miles himself, say that never happens. You cannot make a hole that small, to put it in layman's terms.

    You do have to purge the cell many times to ensure there is no helium left from air. Miles purged it 40 times before collecting each sample, as I said. You have to do various other things. Otherwise, you might end up with lots of helium from some other source, not just a leak. In every case of a mistake, you end up with some random amount far above background.

    The difference between 4 ppb and 7 ppb seems small. You would think it is statistically insignificant. It would be, if it had not been observed many times, always correlated with heat in the same ratio. Except when the heat turned out to be mistake. The fact that it came out close to 7 every time, and not some much higher number, makes the results more believable. It is counterintuitive, but the very low levels of helium are more credible than high numbers would be. Because:

    1. You can't cause such low levels by accident (as I said).

    2. These levels are what you expect if cold fusion produces heat in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion.

    3. These are the levels other people measured, per joule of heat.

  • Since Mills's theory has been mentioned here as being more highly predictive than QED. There is a "common sense" argument which applies clearly to Mills's theory - although not in the same way to LENR where there are plausible reasons to expect the effect to be difficult to observe replicably.

    Mills's theory requires that hydrogen have fractional quantum states. A very clearly testable thing, and given the simplicity of the hydrogen atom something that if it can be achieved, this would be easily replicable.

    For Mills's theory to be compared with LENR is very unfortunate for LENR and unfair. You could, at a pinch, as you still can with Rossi, at an even larger pinch, claim BLP has some not understood by them form of LENR that provides over-unity results. You cannot make that claim for Mills theory. Physicists jump over themsleves to find novel theories. And they have looked at Mills's.

    From Mark Fernee on Quora (one of many articulations of this argument):

    There is no verifiable new physics to be found here. The founder does not even have a physics PhD, but rather is a medical doctor. The idea of fractional quantum states has been debunked many times, even by Nobel laureates. Patents have been revoked. Promises have been made for over a decade with no usable product. The breakthrough is perpetually one or two years away.

    The field of physics is filled with very smart and capable people seeking to understand the universe. If someone had made a breakthrough of such a magnitude that it overturned the current physics paradigm, there would be people flocking to this new idea to try and exploit it. Instead, you have this rediculous trope that scientists are reluctant to embrace new ideas. That's completely laughable, as it is the scientists that are the ones constantly looking for new ideas.

    The simplest and most plausible explanation is that there is no new physics here and that the founder is either knowingly trying to seek funding from people who are not scientifically literate, or self-deluded and is selling his delusional vision. The unfortunate fact is that he has secured millions in capital, which I put down to a failure of due diligence on the part of the investors.

    Let's just look at the claim for a fractional quantum state. This is a testable claim, which has never been verified outside his lab. This would be huge news if was true.

  • So the leak would have to be in the cell or the hose. What we can ask him to do is explain why the leak did not produce random levels of helium far above the 3 to 4 ppb in cells that produced no heat, and ~7 ppb in cells that produced heat. What kind of leak does that?

    That is why you need to check the experimental protocol. I remember reading (but not sure it was Miles) a protocol where in order to conduct these experiments the apparatus was tested for leakage during the electrolysis runs, and if found to leak the test was discarded and the apparatus re-made.

    You can perhaps see how that would answer your question. And, frankly, you would need to have a protocol that discarded results from leaky apparatus.

    But the He experiments deserve long discussion on a thread of their own, for anyone like me who has not made up their minds about them. Perhaps I am the only such here?

  • You like very well the Wright brothers, some family members ? You talk about them all the time...

    I know their family well indeed. I have read their letters, business memos, experimental results, and their many, many vociferous arguments with their enemies in their father's church, with other aviators, and with the Smithsonian. They spend much of their lives engaged in vicious, unrelenting fights and arguments. They were vindictive. When Wilbur died from typhoid fever in 1912, his friends said it was because he was exhausted from all the lawsuits and court testimony he did that year. In 1926, Orville's sister Katherine married at age 52. Orville cut her off and refused to talk to her because she "betrayed" him by marrying. He did not write to her or see her until she was on her deathbed in 1929.

    Not a happy family.

    They remind of some of the cold fusion researchers who shall not be named.

    The Wrights and today's cold fusion researchers resemble John Harrison, who invented the chronometer that revolutionized navigation and made England the most powerful nation on earth. As you would expect, the academic scientists attacked Harrison and did all they could to sabotage the development of chronometer and prevent the use of it. Just as they oppose cold fusion today. Some things never change.

    Harrison spent most of his life engaged in vicious fights with his enemies, trying to get credit for his work. His worst enemy was the Astronomer Royal, the Reverend Nevil Maskelyne from Central Casting. The present Astronomer Royal has done his bit to stop cold fusion, by the way.

    The government ultimately paid Harrison huge sums of money, but not as much as it promised. Mostly the fault the of the academic scientists but also Harrison's fault. Finally, Lord Egmont, head of the Board of Longitude said to him: "Sir . . . you are the strangest and most obstinate creature that I have ever met with, and, would you do what we want you to do, and which is in your power, I will give you my word to give you the money, if you will but do it!" And he did.

  • You can perhaps see how that would answer your question. And, frankly, you would need to have a protocol that discarded results from leaky apparatus.

    OBVIOUSLY if the cell, hose or flask leaks, they would toss out the results! They wouldn't know until weeks later, but the first mass spec results would show the flask has thousands of times more helium than the background (3 or 4 ppb). You couldn't miss it!

    We know the flask does not leak. Because it didn't leak over many months. You are saying there must have been a leaky cell or hose. And you are saying that by some astounding magic the cell or leaked in just enough helium to bring the total up to ~7 ppb, but only when there was excess heat. And by another astounding coincidence, that happens to be the same amount of helium per joule that other people measured in real time, and the same amount that fusion produces. And it never happened when there was no excess heat. So many coincidences!

    Your hypothesis is Highly Improbable, to say the least. As Miles pointed out, the likelihood of that is roughly 1 in 750,000. But since you are a "skeptic," you will believe any damn thing, no matter how improbable, no matter how contrary to the laws of physics and common sense, rather than believe the irrefutable truth of the matter.

  • The latter is fundamental - beautiful - Feynman called it "the jewel of physics",

    Of course Richard had a Nobel POV..perhaps he was joking?

    The reality is that QED is a bunch of fudge factors, numerology, ignored infinities, hocus-pocus, manipulated calculations, illegitimate mathematics, incomprehensible theories, hidden data, biased experiments, miscalculations, suspicious coincidences, lies, arbitrary substitutions of infinite values and budgets of 600 million dollars to continue the game.Maybe it is time to consider alternative proposals. Winter is coming

    (17) (PDF) Something is rotten in the state of QED. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/p…otten_in_the_state_of_QED [accessed Apr 16 2023].

  • I don't want to have this discussion morph into a discussion of Mills vs reality. If you are interested in exploring this idea, I suggest you read the attached citations. However, the comments you cite about the Mills claim are very similar to the tone applied to F-P, with only the vocabulary changed. The message is that the people made mistakes because they did not understand the equipment they were using. Only the person making the evaluation has sufficient knowledge to properly evaluate the study.

    As for QED, I suggest people read the description in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics. This describes the energy relationship between electrons and photons. We need a theory that describes the energy relationship between assembled electrons.

    According to Phillips, the QED method works for hydrogen but fails when applied to He and other elements. In any case, when applied to the electrons in an atom, the method attempts to show the relationship between the energy emitted as a photon when the position of the electron is changed relative to the nucleus, thus the analogy to the planet-Sun relationship. The model is tested by comparing the measured energy of the emitted photon to the calculated value.

    And yes, Mills assumes fractional energy states are available when the electron enters states near the nuclear energy state. While the Mills theory has flaws, I cite it only to show that serious thought and effort have been used to explore different ways of looking at reality.

    I know of no successful effort to explain LENR using QED that is consistent with observed behavior. If you have this information, please show me where I can find the paper.

    [1] R.L. Mills, J.J. Farrell, A new atomic theory, 1990.

    [2] R.L. Mills, P. Kneizys, Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion, Fusion Technol. 20 (1991) 65.

    [3] R. Mills, W.R. Good, J.J. Farrell, Unification of Spascetime, the Forces, Matter and Energy, Science Press, Ephrata, PA, 1992.

    [4] R.L. Mills, Reply to 'Comments on "Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion"', Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 96.

    [5] J.J. Farrell, R.L. Mills, W.R. Good, An alternative explanation of extreme ultraViolet emission from dark matter, 1993.

    [6] R.L. Mills, W.R. Good, R.M. Shaubach, Dihydrino molecule identification, Fusion Technol. 25 (1994) 103-19.

    [7] R.L. Mills, W.R. Good, Fractional quantum energy levels of hydrogen, Fusion Technol. 28 (1995) 1697.

    [8] R. Mills, Comments on "Interaction of palladium/hydrogen and palladium/deuterium to measure excess energy per atom for each isiotope", Fusion Technol. 33 (1998) 384.

    [9] R.L. Mills, Comments on 'Interaction of palladium/hydrogen and palladium/deuterium to measure the excess energy per atom for each isotope', Fusion Technol. 33 (1998) 384.

    [10] R. Mills, W.R. Good, various papers, Blacklight Power, 1999.

    [11] R. Mills, W.R. Good, various papers, Blacklight Power, 1999.

    [12] R. Mills, Novel hydrogen compounds from a potassium carbonate electrolytic cell, Fusion Technol. 37 (2000) 157.

    [13] R. Mills, W.R. Good, J. Phillips, A.I. Popov, Low Energy Hydrogen Methods and Structures, USA, 2000.

    [14] R.L. Mills, B. Dhandapani, M. Nansteel, H. J., A. Voigt, Identification of compounds containing novel hydride ions by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, J. Hydrogen Energy 26 (2001) 965.

    [15] R.L. Mills, P. Ray, The grand unified theory of classical quantum mechanics, J. Hydrogen Eng. 27 (2002) 565.

    [16] R.L. Mills, P. Ray, Vibrational spectral emission of fractional-principal-quantum-energy-level hydrogen molecule ion, J. Hydrogen Eng. 27 (2002) 533.

    [17] R.L. Mills, P. Ray, Spectral emission of fractional quantum energy levels of atomic hydrogen from a helium-hydrogen plasma and the implications for dark matter, J. Hydrogen Eng. 27 (2002) 301.

    [18] R.L. Mills, P.C. Ray, B. Dhandapani, R.M. Mayo, J. He, Comparison of excessive Balmer alpha line broadening of glow discharge and microwave hydrogen plasmas with certain catalysts, J. Appl. Phys. 92 (2002) 7008.

    [19] R. Mills, P. Ray, Extreme ultraviolet spectroscopy of helium–hydrogen plasma, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 36 (2003) 1535.

    [20] R.L. Mills, Author's response to a letter to the editor, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 28 (2003) 359.

    [21] R.L. Mills, Highly Stable Novel Inorganic Hydrides, J. New Mat. Electrochem. Systems 6 (2003) 45-54.

    [22] R.L. Mills, MOLECULAR HYDROGEN LASER, in: USPOT (Ed), USA, 2004.

    [23] R.L. Mills, Y. Lu, M. Nansteel, J. He, A. Voigt, B. Dhandapani, ENERGETIC CATALYST-HYDROGEN PLASMA REACTION AS A POTENTIAL NEW ENERGY SOURCE, Am. Chem. Soc. 49 (2004) 392.

    [24] J. Phillips, X. Chen, R. Mills, Water bath calorimetry study of excess heat production in resonant transfer plasmas, J. Appl. Phys. 96 (2004) 3095.

    [25] R. Mills, P. Ray, R.M. Mayo, M. Nansteel, B. Dhandapani, J. Phillips, Spectroscopic Study of Unique Line Broadening and Inversion in Low Pressure Microwave Plasma Generated Water Plasmas, J. Plasma Phys. (2005) 877.

    [26] R.L. Mills, The fallacy of Feynman’s and related arguments on the stability of the hydrogen atom according to quantum mechanics, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie 30 (2005) 129.

    [27] R. Mills, The grand unified theory of classical quantum mechanics, Cadmus Professional Communications, Ephrata, PA, 2006.

    [28] R. Mills, H. Zea, J. He, B. Dhandapani, Water bath calorimetry on a catalytic reaction of atomic hydrogen, Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 4258.

    [29] J. Phillips, C.-K. Chen, K. Ahktar, B. Dhandapani, R. Mills, Evidence of the Production of Hot Atomic Hydrogen in RF Generated Hydrogen/Argon, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 32 (2007) 3010-25.

    [30] R. Mills, B. Dhandapani, K. Akhtar, Excessive Balmer a line broadening in capacitively coupled rf water-vapor plasmas, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33 (2008) 802-15.

    [31] R. Mills, X.G. Zhao, K. Akhtar, C. Z., J. He, Y. Lu, M.L. Good, G. Chu, Commerical power source from forming new states of hydrogen, (2008).

    [32] J. Phillips, C.-K. Chen, R. Mills, Evidence of Energetic Reactions Between Hydrogen and Oxygen Species in RF Generated H2O Plasmas, J. New Hydrogen Energy 33 (2008) 2419-32.

    [33] R. Mills, K. Akhtar, Fast H in Hydrogen Mixed Gas Microwave Plasmas When an Atomic Hydrogen

    Supporting Surface was Present, www.blacklightpower.com (2009).

    [34] R. Mills, BlackLight Power Multi-Cell Thermally Coupled Reactor, 2010.

    [35] R. Mills, Heterogeneous hudrogen-catalyst reactor, USA, 2011.

    [36] R. Mills, Thermally reversible hydrino catalyst systems as a new power source, 2011.

    [37] R. Mills, Y. Lu, Editorial about "Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm", Eur. Phys. J. D64 (2011) 63.

    [38] H. Mills, Rossi's Knot Untangled: Practical Mechanisms For The Induction of Cold Fusion in Metal Hydrides 2016.


    [40] R. Mills, B. Dhandapani, W.R. Good, J. He, New States of Hydrogen Isolated from K2CO3 Electrolysis Gases, www.blacklightpower.com (?).

    [41] R. Mills, L. Lu, Time resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm, ? (?).

    [42] R. Mills, Y. Lu, K. Akhtar, Spectroscopic observation of helium-ion and hydrogen catalyzed hydrino transition, www.blacklightpower.com (?).

    [43] R. Mills, G. Zhao, K. Akhtar, Z. Chang, J. He, Y. Lu, W.R. Good, B. Dhandapani, Commercial power source from forming new states of hydrogen, www.blacklightpower.com (?).

    [44] R.L. Mills, Physical Solutions of the Nature of the Atom, Photon, and Their Interactions to Form Excited and Predicted Hydrino States, www.blacklightpower.com (?).

  • However, the comments you cite about the Mills claim are very similar to the tone applied to F-P, with only the vocabulary changed. The message is that the people made mistakes because they did not understand the equipment they were using. Only the person making the evaluation has sufficient knowledge to properly evaluate the study.

    There is a large difference between Mills and F&P. F&P were widely replicated. Mills has not been, as far as I know.

    I do not understand Mills, except for his first experiment. I understand that one, and it was replicated. It looks like conventional cold fusion to me. It is here:


  • Only Mills replication I know of was by NASA from his early CF days:


    The fight water-Ni-K2CO s electrolytic cell on loan from
    the Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation clearly exhibited the
    phenomenon of apparent excess heat when tested at 4
    selected dc currentsand one pulse mode cun'ent Dam was
    collectedusingsimple' on-the-fly" calorimetric calibration
    in the thermal steady state and was reduced to give the
    apparent excess heat by extrapolation methods that are
    accepted practice in the field of anomalous heat cell ('cold
    fusion') research.
    Our main findings regarding cell voltages, currents and
    powers are summarized in Table I. The apparent power
    gains ranged from 1.06 to 1.68. The apparent excess
    power of lifts particular cell saturated at a rather low 11.4
    W, at an electrical input power of 59.6 W, using a cell
    current of 20 Adc, as compared to about 50 W apparent
    excess reported by other workers for essentially the same
    cell. We attn'bute this shortfall to an unfortunate choice of
    untested nickel from an alternate source.

    After switching to his Hydrino theory, there were many validations/verifications, but no replications that I am aware of.

  • if this site wishes to define that question as "most of the anomalous results discussed here in fact are the result of some unexpected nuclear reaction mechanism"

    Then I would point out it probably - historically - is not true. Many of the results discussed here turn out to be explained by non-nuclear mechanisms. Some things under active discussion here, e.g. LEC, will probably be agreed eventually to be non-nuclear - although they are undoubtedly interesting and anomalous.

    If however the question is: "what is the mechanism behind that subset of high quality LENR results that are most resulting from likely nuclear reactions?" then i think you will find everyone has a different core subset.

    Fair enough question for me. I think all good scientists have to approach an anomalous phenomenon with a healthy dose of skepticism. The topic under discussion here is what would be the proper "signature" for a LENR. In my mind, part of the confusion stems from the fact that LENR encompasses different types of nuclear reactions with different mechanisms. My take on this is that we are trying to stick a round peg though a square hole theoretically. When sufficient data accumulates that goes against the standard models it's high time to reconsider the standard models.

    All true empiricists must stick to the data as Ed states above. Once you are convinced that you have covered every possible alternative explanation, then its the models that have to undergo the same level of scrutiny that THH is providing to the data.

    In my humble opinion, Mizuno can now replicate XSH results 1000 times out of 1000. Therefore, XSH is logically my first choice as the key "fingerprint" of LENR. DOE fell into the trap of neutrons but that included a priori assumptions about the mechanism, so using that model one would automatically eliminate any possible new mechanism and is therefore illogical and bad science.

    There has been a long discussion here about He but in my opinion He is a result of only a certain subset of many possible LENR so it is not in that sense the best fingerprint. To make myself clear, I do agree that if you find sufficient excess He correlated with XSH, then I agree that's a good argument for LENR but it's not comprehensive.

    The slightly more generalized view is that TRANSMUTATIONS, are definitely a signature or fingerprint of LENR. The data available on transmutations from NASA, US Army, MIT, Mizuno, Storms, (I probably missed another dozen quality sources), is overwhelming. He production is just one subset of the more generalized transmutation theme.

    Chemical heat sources can be eliminated rather easily THH, simply by taking the mass of the reactor for example our new reactors are 2kg. An extreme example is if the entire reactor was made of Al and the entire mass was oxidized to Al2O3 we get about 30MJ of energy if the entire reactor was oxidized. If our experiment shows XSH of 120MJ, (something we commonly do) then one can very comfortably eliminate any possible chemical source of heat. It might be prudent to take an accurate mass reading of the reactor before and after the experiment as any external oxidation (the main chemical reaction at high temps is oxidation in an oxidizing atmosphere) would add mass to the system.

    All these things can be worked out. In my day job, I produce calorimeters that measure heat flow on HVAC systems and we do it better than any company, big or small, in the market. We then use AI/ML to optimize the energy use. We deal with measurements of temperature where the uncertainties are <0.005C. In order to achieve this there is a lot of variables we have to deal with, not the least of which is calibration to ITS-90 primary standards. Whenever you are measuring heat flow based on delta T, the errors really add up when the temperatures approach each other. A typical chiller system might have a delta-T of about 2-3C most of the year with 5-6C at peak load occurring only 1-2% of the year. So accuracy is indispensable. Yet, when I see LENR papers, rarely do I see calibrations to ISO17025 traceable or ITS-90 primary standards. I rarely see a proper uncertainty budget calculation. I rarely see proper statistical power calculations.

    So LENR researchers kind of dig their own grave in this regard in my humble opinion. I agree with Jed in some comments THH does do some handwaving towards some nebulous "unknown unknown" but it behooves us as researchers not to just dismiss all of what a skeptic says based on some unclear comments. Let's consider all possible error sources, address them and publish high quality papers. That is what we need to do to get out of this rut we are in.

  • Thank you to these highlights, in the same way we have had Willard Custer also discredited by his contemporaries. This story you related makes me think that their strategy was not the right one at all... Unfortunately the cold fusion researchers have this same passive strategy completely angelistic, make patents, write papers, books, conferencies and like grocers waiting for the passers-by so that they want to buy your stall.

    (sorry about this short "off topic")...

    Edited 2 times, last by Cydonia ().

  • Currently the field is staying more often around the NI/H/Cu way rather than Pd no ? ( NAE or not)

    Yup. That's the closest one. Plus there have been other positive Ni-H experiments. I think they are substantially different, but it has been a long time since I looked at them.

  • Currently the field is staying more often around the NI/H/Cu way rather than Pd no ? ( NAE or not)

    That's true, and a good thing. There will never be enough Pd to provide all the energy we use today, and it is currently very expensive. I also think that Fe is potentially another fuel metal.

    A notice Daniel-G says:-

    LENR encompasses different types of nuclear reactions with different mechanisms.

    Conventional nuclear processes are much the same. However, it is important to distinguish between outcomes and mechanisms, a contrary example would be 'there are many hundreds of different kinds of clock mechanism, but they all yield similar outcomes if you only want to know the time.'

    To look at chemistry, there are many reactions where a very slight variations in the environment (pH, pressure, temperature etc) yield different outcomes. An example of this is the Aluminium oxidation reactions I have been working on. Everything else being equal at 95C and below 2Bar the reaction between Al and water yields hydrogen and Aluminium hydroxide, and will run to completion. At 98 C and 2Bar the reaction yields hydrogen and aluminium oxide and does not run to completion because the aluminium oxide forms a protective barrier on the metal surface. So we have a system where modest changes in the chemical environment yield major changes in the product outcomes, but input materials and the underlying mechanism -oxidation of metallic aluminium - is the same.

    So, IMHO, you cannot get a ruler and draw a sharp line between LENR and chemistry, but should accept the idea that relatively modest changes in physical conditions can yield very different LENR outcomes, which is I am sure underlies the points that Ed was making in this paper.

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.