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

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Nope. A law. A theory has a unifying, underlying principle to it, such as evolution being caused by natural selection. Whereas before 1952, people knew there were dominant and recessive genes, and they even knew which chromosome the genes were located on, but they had no deeper knowledge of what the genes were physically, or what caused a gene to be dominant or recessive.

    Your definition of "underlying principle" is in that case subjective.


    Mendel would argue that "units of inheritance" which are dominant or recessive, is an underlying principle. So would I.


    The extra detail you get from associating genes with DNA sequences is just detail.


    How much detail do you need before it becomes, in your view, "fundamental"?


    (1) Genes are identified with DNA sequences

    (2) Genes are identified with possibly multiple copies of DNA sequences.

    (2) As above but the DNA sequences are expressed or not according to stuff generated from other DNA sequences, thus switching genes on and off?

    (3) as above but all of the details that determine gene expression.


    Without all of the details, you have an inexact model. You choose to set and arbitrary dividing line between what is "fundamental" and what not.


    Another example would be electricity.

    Maxwell's laws are more fundamental than Kirchoff's Laws


    Yet both are highly predictive, and they predict (quantitatively) new experimental results: so they are more than just "this happened - so it will happen again". Even constancy can be an important predictive theory:


    "mass is conserved in any chemical reaction" - is not obvious, and predicts new experiments and important,


    Jed: I'd recommend to you, when thinking about things, to entertain the possibility that what seems certain to you may be the opposite of certain to other people. Not because they are stupid, or have an agenda, or biased. Just because they think about things more in shades of grey (if that is an expression that can now be used without inappropriate associations!).


    In this case you think you have an "obvious" distinction between laws and theories that are fundamental. I disagree. If I had to distinguish I'd say that a scientific theory:


    (1) Must generalise from past experiments to make new future predictions (not just - mass is conserved in the reaction 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O - bit "therefore mass is conserved in all reactions"

    (2) Those predictions (of new experiments) must prove correct and informative (in a Bayesian sense, rather than saying nothing that was not already known).


    the above definition is not quite complete - if anyone challenges it I will try to elaborate.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    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.

    Think about your above two sentences. You agree there can be "obvious" leaks - discarded. You exclude the possibility of "microleaks" - a poor seal allowing He diffusion (but with no air gap). Those can only be evaluated by checking the experimental results. Once we have a protocol in which high He values are discarded as leaks your objection that "we know the flask does not leak" vanishes. It may leak. Leaks higher than microleaks will be discarded. You are assuming either the leaks are large, or zero. But without showing for this type of experiment that microleaks are impossible, you don't know. In terms of mechanism, if a poor seal can result in a large leak, it can also result in reduced seal area where therefore diffusion is higher than normal rate and high enough to affect the experiment. You need to look carefully at which runs are discarded and which are kept - have a precise protocol - see in what way the He correlates with excess heat and be sure there is no other variable that would affect leaks (like temperature) that also correlates with excess heat.


    I'm not saying it can't be done. Maybe it has been. But statements like yours here do not give me confidence it has been done. And the results, because of the difficulty of the experiment, are not simple to interpret.


    Of course - any experimenter will make a judgement call and satisfy themselves they have done enough testing. It is still judgement call whether you think they come from excess heat He or some correlation of microleakiness with the experiment. Which is why all of the details - and there are a lot for this experiment - matter. Then the judgement calls can be evaluated. (And I am aware there is a lot of info in the writeups - which is why we could examine them on another thread).


    The LENR community know LENR exists so do not think the level of certainty in a positive LENR result needs to be higher than in a result where the a priori probability is 50%, for said result to be accepted. So a result with a not known to exist but not rules out "microleaks" alternative explanation will seem definite. Others will not have that certainly, remember the way the real world comes and bites your assumptions, and remain unconvinced.


    Before you say "we all know that" the lack of clear candidate theory in LENR means that even those in the LENR field might want be cautious about results and factor in a priori probability - even if your default probabilities - based on your judgement - are different. Maybe the LENR reactions cannot generate He - but do transform metals. If He generation is a definite it excludes such theories as impossible. Are the He results clear enough to absolutely exclude LENR theories that do not allow He generation?


    Before you say - "prejudice - we must not let a priori probability affect confidence". It is done in any experiment. When you measure a new battery with a voltmeter and get 0, you check connections + voltmeter, because a new battery is unlikely to be discharged. Whereas the same thing checking an old likely fully discharged batteries you would not do that check. Ok - I would check everything at the start anyway - the point is that I check MORE when the results are unexpected. In scientific experiments more checking should be done as a matter of course. But there is only so much time and money we have, and not everything can be checked.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    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.

    Ed will comment on that.


    It is a strong statement, which actually classifies a lot of the NASA "electron screening + ..." work as not LENR.


    Unless by different outcomes you mean different reaction rates for one or just possibly 2 dominant reactions which can be predicted from minor modifications to standard nuclear reaction theory. But not "LENR produces my favourite unexpected stable transmutation product - and yeah - it changes to something completely different when I alter the experiment".


    That definition of LENR - held by some - is not the same as a more limited definition.


    I assume here ( :) ) that the LENR community here are all, as scientists, keen to seek the correct most predictive explanation for the set of LENR anomalies, allowing the possibility that some of these might have non-LENR explanations even though the preponderance of evidence means some core LENR mechanism must exist to explain most of them.

    This is the most interesting thread I have seen in many years which is in many ways due to the input of the long time experimenter and theorist dr. Ed Storms!

    LENR would highly benefit if others like Ed would also join these discussions.

    Storms , I highly appreciate your paper as it gives many starting experimenters a flying start and that will benefit the LENR research. I’m not sufficiently involved in the field to really comment on your work, but maybe you can answer this question based on your knowledge:

    Would you think that occurrence of LENR in Ni-H is more likely than in Ni-D? And if so, for what reason?

    Thanks.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I assume here ( :) ) that the LENR community here are all, as scientists, keen to seek the correct most predictive explanation for the set of LENR anomalies, allowing the possibility that some of these might have non-LENR explanations even though the preponderance of evidence means some core LENR mechanism must exist to explain most of them.

    Of course not, we just like keeping you busy at weekends.


    As for different outcomes, many similar 'wet' experiments that worked according to the authors seem to give varying outcomes, for example - Gammas, Betas, X-rays, Electricity, He, T, and the 'dry' plasma work - for example Safire, Lipinski, Mills etc likewise.


    I do also think that there are core mechanisms across all LENR systems that explain the release of nuclear energy in unusual ways. So in the same way that there are core mechanisms and associated theories explaining catalysis (at least in inorganic chemistry) there is certainly a core theory for LENR. But because of its polyvalent nature and the rag-bag army of researchers that have so long dominated the field we still cannot agree on what it might look like.


    Ed Storms is hoping to contribute in a meaningful way to that effort.

    Well, i think that so many are too much focused on the ingredients and not enough on the processus involved.

    Now for ingredients too common explanations are related, for example He4 is considered especially as ash by formers but never as fuel..?

    Quote from Alan Smith

    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.

    Quote from Gerard McEk

    This is the most interesting thread I have seen in many years which is in many ways due to the input of the long time experimenter and theorist dr. Ed Storms!

    LENR would highly benefit if others like Ed would also join these discussions.

    Storms , I highly appreciate your paper as it gives many starting experimenters a flying start and that will benefit the LENR research. I’m not sufficiently involved in the field to really comment on your work, but maybe you can answer this question based on your knowledge:

    Would you think that occurrence of LENR in Ni-H is more likely than in Ni-D? And if so, for what reason?

    Thanks.

    Good question. I believe, and the behavior supports, that all isotopes of hydrogen can be caused to fuse when the required conditions are created. This required condition can be created in any material. However, its creation is easier in Pd than in Ni. When people focus on a material, such as Ni, while using a particular isotope, such as H, they will naturally have increased success as they identify and create the conditions required to cause LENR. This does not mean that H is uniquely active in Ni and D is uniquely active in Pd. This only means that the treatments that work have been focused on a particular isotope. Nevertheless, the conditions required to make H work might be slightly different from those required to make D work.


    When D is used, the final product is observed to be He-4. When H+D is used the final product is mostly tritium with some He-4 and D. When H+H is used, a series of products are produced starting with D. In other words, the nuclear product and the amount of produced energy depend on the isotope. Unfortunately, people are not interested in exploring this idea, so the evidence is not available.

    Quote from Gerard McEk

    This is the most interesting thread I have seen in many years which is in many ways due to the input of the long time experimenter and theorist dr. Ed Storms!

    LENR would highly benefit if others like Ed would also join these discussions.

    Storms , I highly appreciate your paper as it gives many starting experimenters a flying start and that will benefit the LENR research. I’m not sufficiently involved in the field to really comment on your work, but maybe you can answer this question based on your knowledge:

    Would you think that occurrence of LENR in Ni-H is more likely than in Ni-D? And if so, for what reason?

    Thanks.

    I agree 100%, it would be nice if we can get more professional people to follow in Storm's footsteps! More open research is the right way to go, then everyone will be a winner!


    Would say that this is one of the most interesting threads since we started the lenr forum. I am very grateful to everyone who helps make this my favorite place on the web.

    Let's explore the problem of many behaviors. I also believe that a few core mechanisms are occurring at different rates, depending on the conditions. We know that one of these mechanisms produces He4 with an amount of energy consistent with D-D fusion but without the expected energetic radiation. We know that energetric radiation can be produced by fractofusion, which is a variation of hot fusion. We know that conventional nuclear reactions can result from energetic radiation that is applied to the material, such as is being done by NASA. We know that secondary nuclear reactions can result from internally generated radiation produced by the LENR process. Rather than being confused, we need to apply knowledge and logic to isolate the different processes. This can be done, but it requires more effort than is being applied these days.


    Yes, I'm hoping to contribute in a meaningful way. But meanwhile, my efforts to describe the LENR process have generated the usual random collection of ideas having neither logic nor continuity. I'm trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle. The puzzle is already missing most of the pieces, which requires the shape of what is missing to be imagined. Instead of working together to find the missing parts, the other players try to hide some of the pieces.

    Quote from Storms

    Let's explore the problem of many behaviors. I also believe that a few core mechanisms are occurring at different rates, depending on the conditions. We know that one of these mechanisms produces He4 with an amount of energy consistent with D-D fusion but without the expected energetic radiation. We know that energetric radiation can be produced by fractofusion, which is a variation of hot fusion. We know that conventional nuclear reactions can result from energetic radiation that is applied to the material, such as is being done by NASA. We know that secondary nuclear reactions can result from internally generated radiation produced by the LENR process. Rather than being confused, we need to apply knowledge and logic to isolate the different processes. This can be done, but it requires more effort than is being applied these days.


    Yes, I'm hoping to contribute in a meaningful way. But meanwhile, my efforts to describe the LENR process have generated the usual random collection of ideas having neither logic nor continuity. I'm trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle. The puzzle is already missing most of the pieces, which requires the shape of what is missing to be imagined. Instead of working together to find the missing parts, the other players try to hide some of the pieces.

    Unfortunately, I think this is the paradoxical nature of our social science and applied technology at the moment.
    So much so that there is a philosophical paper written about it...
    The Energy Freedom Paradox :D

    Let's try to agree on something so that we can move on.

    Can we agree that the production of He-4 is the main nuclear reaction when D is used?

    Can we agree that secondary nuclear reactions can also occur, such as transmutation?

    Can we agree that conventional nuclear reactions can occur, such as fractofusion?


    Can we agree to follow a logic path to see where it leads rather than trying to explore every idea that a person might imagine? The process is very much like trying to find a path when hiking through a wilderness. Success results when the most logical option is taken while ignoring all of the many other possibilities. When a wrong turn is taken, a hiker simply backtracks and chooses another option. When every possibility has to be debated, the hiker will never reach the end of the wilderness.

    I could agree on that based on the well documented observations of many experimentalists, but more replications are always important. Especially one's that eliminate variables to find the root cause of the phenomenon that have been observed.
    If I recall correctly, you have quite a few experiments which seem very well documented in low power level regimes. :D
    Just to reiterate it once again, I appreciate your efforts greatly.

    It seems to me electromagnetic induced oscillations with appropriately engineered nanoscopic waveguides could be very useful in the transformation of condensed energy (Matter) in the boundary layers from which they interface.
    Here is some food for thought in taking a few steps back on our wilderness hike. Below is an interesting experiment without any direct electrical inputs (only chemical) with simple boundary layer conditions.
    Chemical phase shift changes emissivity properties of a metal. There are likely several hypothesis on why this phenomenon happens, like chemical Leidenfrost effect/rapid phase shift, ionic hydrogen bonds, ect. The delicate balance of the solid, gas, and liquid makes for an interesting testable phenomenon when the proper field conditions are met. Thunderfoot also has a video on this in a smaller flask without the coffee filter.
    Thunder Foot Video on invisible Sodium phase shift.

    There are research papers one can find as well on the topic if one is interested of course.

    Perhaps one of the challenges in this research is it involves non-linear vector fields that are very difficult to calculate?

    However, we can make some predictions now based on experimentations thanks to efforts like yours. :)

    I ask this to everyone reading, what are some purposed experiments in which we can eliminate variables in order to find the root cause of the phenomenon?


    It seems pretty apparent to me that many of us are aware of metamaterials that would likely advance this field of research. It is in my opinion that the real challenge we face in learning more about these physical phenomenon are not from nature, but from ourselves.

    Quote from Storms

    Yes, I'm hoping to contribute in a meaningful way. But meanwhile, my efforts to describe the LENR process have generated the usual random collection of ideas having neither logic nor continuity. I'm trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle. The puzzle is already missing most of the pieces, which requires the shape of what is missing to be imagined. Instead of working together to find the missing parts, the other players try to hide some of the pieces

    IMO, one of the main problems I see is that many of the players have invested so much of their time, reputation, and money into their ideas, they are not willing to explore other ways/theories for fear of finding they were on the wrong track all along. You, Mizuno, McKubre are some of the few willing to venture out into new territory.


    Many others have formed companies to capitalize on their ideas and have investors to consider before participating in an open discussion such as thread. Others have written books, won awards, made a name for themselves in the community, which further traps them in their own self-made bubble.


    But thank goodness, we now have a new crop of researchers coming into the field with mostly government funding, which eliminates much of the personal motives that have hampered LENR progress for 33 years. We also have the X-Prize (which I have heard from 2 sources will either be out "soon", or in 2024...take your pick)) which will help gain public acceptance, and accelerate R/D.

    Quote from Storms

    I have an important question for TTH. What is your motive for taking the time to reply here? What is your goal? An answer would help structure a proper reply. Right now the discussion is going in circles. You seem determined to suggest any idea that can show the claim for cold fusion is wrong. Even when the results are presented using accepted arguments and formats, you suggest a flaw. Even when independent measurements agree, you suggest reasons why the results can not be believed. Even after 34 years of study by dozens of professional scientists, the results of which are published in over 2000 peer-reviewed papers, you find reasons to reject the conclusions. What is your motive? Why would you now only believe the results that result from the work funded by the DOE? Your approach made sense 30 years ago. Now it does not look rational. In any case, your approach is useless to me and to the other people who are trying to solve this important mystery.


    Ironically, 34 years ago civilization was given the means to avoid the catastrophe that will result from global warming. This critical energy source was rejected with your help. Now, it's too late. I hope you are pleased with the result of your efforts.


    Ed

    You seem determined to suggest any idea that can show the claim for cold fusion is wrong


    Below, I explain motivation. There is a difference between unproven, and wrong. Rossi's setups were wrong (22/23 probably so - with that track record we do not need to consider the one not provably, but possibly, wrong one). Rossi has been a big distraction for LENR research and is not typical. He is a proven liar and cheat. Perhaps though, since interest in LENR was as you say unjustly stifled 30 years ago - having it for equally bad reasons (Rossi effect) enhanced now is only fair.


    Anyway - what you (& Jed) don't like me not being convinced by is evidence that is very interesting, and suggestive of LENR, but not proven LENR. Though it is proven something. It is a pity we do not now have the funding to rerun those electrolysis experiments - using modern knowledge about what materials work, and get better certainty from careful replication. It was what I thought the google team should have done - I still don't understand the tangled story of why they did not.


    The work that I like now is a different type of result. It is quantitative, indisputable (high energy particle detection multiple ways leaves no uncertainty) and characterised parametrically which also increases certainty. It builds on 20 years of previous experiments (Czerski et al) making progress incrementally as would be expected. It makes predictions which are found true on further experiment. There is some DOE work that I don't like. No-one has done and published work as good as the old excess heat experiments. (FYI I have no connection to Czerski or any of the groups doing electron screening stuff - I just like the work).


    Even after 34 years of study by dozens of professional scientists, the results of which are published in over 2000 peer-reviewed papers, you find reasons to reject the conclusions. What is your motive?


    I had no involvement 30 years ago. Perhaps, if I had had that, I would be as discouraged as you think I should be.


    My motive being here is that I like to understand mysteries. LENR is a mystery. For me, I am not very biased which way the solution goes - e.g. nuclear reactions, or a collection of experimental anomalies. I have always been in the middle between those who see experiment as primary, and those who see theory as primary. I see understanding as primary and that means making sense of the experimental results. I am motivated to stick with LENR because I am very perseverant and the results do NOT make sense - although efforts to do this (such as yours) are around and to be applauded.


    I was (and am) most interested in the Czerski lattice electron screening stuff [1] - in fact 5 years ago (?) I did an extensive forward/backward Literature review based on Czerski trying to make sense of all the experimental data indicating high screening in metal lattices (varying by metal).


    My viewpoint: I see new fundamental electronic interactions as extraordinarily unlikely (we would have hints) - for all the normal reasons. But unexpected behaviour of electrons in lattices, or lattices at gaps/discontinuities/whatever, or surfaces - that is fine. Frankly the LEC results (indisputed) show such unexpected electronic behaviour. I see unexpected nuclear woo-woo* reactions as extraordinarily unlikely (we would have hints). However the range of possible non-woo-woo behaviours of nuclei is very large - unlike electrons they are v complex not fully understood systems. So something that pushed reaction rates in unusual ways is quite possible. in fact there are many effects which we know do that. The issue for LENR is just that the pushing is a few more OOMs than we would normally expect.


    When I feel positive about LENR - it is looking at all those interesting theoretical effects - plasmonic effects, nuclear resonances, screening, coherence effects.


    What experimental data makes me positive? I am pushed a bit towards positivity by all that high quality old data - much less so by the newer Ni-H excess heat data - I think it is less reliable. All that is needed is for one of the Mizuno-replicant groups to provide a black box with COP=1.5 or so for proper 3rd part testing using different calorimetry and it would become very reliable. I've always seen this as something that will happen, or not. If not, the longer we wait the larger my doubts in its reliability. But I do not feel just because one set of LENR data proves unreliable that it all must be that.


    When I feel negative about LENR, it is the fact that thus far all attempts to tie down or amplify effects using scaling, or get parametric insight, have failed. Thus when McKubre replicated F&P electrolysis with superb calorimetry the magnitude of the observed effect (except for a I think two unreplicable outliers) goes down to something which while above calorimetry errors is not above some potential system difference between active and control runs not understood. When MFMP tried to scale early Rossi-type reactors in the obvious way (increasing thermal resistance to ambient thereby reducing input power required) it did not scale (though of course there was lower expectation in that case!). The lack of scaling pushes me in the direction of the results being artifacts, as does (some) of the scaling with temperature (e.g. on another thread here Daniel's).


    I don't want to argue about "is the McK data so definite it proves LENR". It is high quality data without obvious issues. It has possible not obvious issues, in spite of excellent attempts to control for it, based on just plausible differential heat gradients between control and active runs caused by recombination. We have argued around this a lot: it is not fruitful to revisit it. My problem is that much better apparatus and methodology normally makes effects much easier to see. In this case much better apparatus and methodology (from McK) led to a lower effect that would be expected based on previous results.


    I'd extend that to the Ni-H stuff. Everyone is interested in it (I think?) based on a number of very encouraging results from Mizuno and other Japanese researchers. If the replicated systems, better instrumented, all end up giving results 5X smaller or more than the systems they replicate I do not believe them. Why? Because then nearly all of the original result was error. It therefore provides no support for Ni-H anomalies. I could not see any clear error in the M results, even though there were a few red flags in terms of methodology. If they are proved wildly wrong why would I have confidence in some other similar work in which I could also see no obvious error?


    The flip side of this is that if clearly high results as from Mizuno and claimed by a number of replicators (I'm including Clean Planet in this - even if they are not replicating M) are real then unambiguous replicable results can be found, and if any of the parties are willing tested in a way that would convince me and (pretty quickly) everyone.


    My big push negative is the lack of experimental progress from F&P, who claimed high excess heat. Personally as I've argued on another thread after being convinced to the dark side by ascoli - I had for so long not wanted to look at that poor quality difficult to analyse boil-off data simply reckoning no-one in their right minds could trust it - I now have no trust in any high F&P results. Which explains the lack of replication at a similar magnitude. But anomalous Pd-D excess heat remains.


    F&P were not the first people to observe anomalous excess heat in D-Pd systems and I can be interested in the anomalies in spite of my lack of confidence in their data. Theoretically, I don't see LENR as impossible at all, it is just that (1) the experimental data is not enough yet and (2) what data there is, is too heterogeneous and not clearly nuclear for my comfort. If I compare "unknown LENR theory" with "collection of experimental anomalies" the way that the observed effects are so scattered and the LENR mechanism forced to be an unusual one that is coincidentally just very difficult to detect makes me negative, as a whole, about the experimental stuff.


    As I've said above, I greatly enjoy the theory regardless of whether it works (and tiny bits of it, as a minimum, the enhanced lattice screening at low energies, are now proven to work). And I am fascinated by the anomalies - both at an experimental level (what caused those McK differences between active and calibration, active and control systems?) and because Pd-D or Pd-H lattices are such a complex system so capable of being surprising.


    Forums like this tend to be fan clubs - with trolls. I am just unusual in that I am neither a fan nor a troll. From my POV everyone should welcome that - even if it is sometimes annoying and no use. But the social media tribalism means that people try to see me as having some positive or negative motive - an agent in some war. I am of course always positive about research - especially because I see a non-instrumental value in solving mysteries.


    THH


    PS - many here find it impossible to believe that I can be interested in this stuff, and open-minded, while being at the moment broadly negative about the experimental stuff. I am sure anyone sticking with the field for 34+ years understands this negativity well. The negativity comes from a continued lack of replicability or coherent characterisation in spite of claims of much better results. It can be excused - the excuses come, for me, with a burden of negativity, which will be dispelled as soon as either we have replicability (not much - just a single extraordinary system continuing to work and tested by different labs each with their own different calorimetry and parametric data that makes sense) or we have scaling results that tie in strongly with a theory and give us a clear way forward. Also, if (e.g. Clean planet) have their claimed LENR powered boiler success will shortly emerge, making all doubt irrelevant. The rewards from LENR are high and justify continued research even with a low probability of success. Maybe as somone who likes the theory anyway I am more tolerant of possible negative experimental results?


    [1] https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CzerskiKthehdphrea.pdf

    The 2H(d, p)3H reaction in metallic media at very low energies

    Europhys. Lett., 68 (3), pp. 363–369 (2004)
    DOI: 10.1209/epl/i2004-10209-3

    PPS - I don't see LENR as being needed for a green energy transition. Enormous improvements, as we have made, in PV, and wind power are enough. It is just political will that is lacking. Governments are stupid. We also need and are getting slowly improvements in battery technology. I'm not sure there can be enough hydro to handle base load so we will need cheaper batteries for short and medium-term storage, but the road map to those is well laid out.


    *woo-woo nuclear behaviour. Something predicated on a new fundamental theory of physics (e.g. alternative to Standard model) that shows itself only in LENR anomalies and pseudo-scientific numerology. There is ample room within standard theory for unexpected and difficult to understand effects. And the barrier for any new fundamental theory that changes real world predictions at normal energies is that we have in all those particle physics and other experiments no hint of it.

    Thanks for the support.


    I would like to remind you that LENR occurs in an apparently ordinary material without any outside treatment other than having D made available. The special condition is a feature present in the normal physical-chemical structure. None of the conditions you describe are required. Therefore, you are not describing LENR. You are discussing an entirely different phenomenon. I would like to focus on what we know to be true about LENR.


    The root cause is presently invisible because it occurs on an atomic scale. We are forced to discover its characteristics using an indirect approach. That is why we are having so much difficulting agreeing on anything. The event is too small to see, it is too unusual to explain mathematically, and it is so rarely produced that we do not have enough information to understand its cause. We need to make good guesses. So far, the guesses have been useless. The question is "Can the people here do better"? The jury is still out.

    Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

    Yes, look at the nodules, there are also clearly visible traces of spherical spheres, that it is clear to a fool what and how these nodules were formed and I'm trying to help you, that these are LENR processes and other processes will not be there, or you decided to do your own theory, I don't understand you, go to my topic, let's think that to do. You don't understand me, Alan has known me for a long time since the 13th conference in Russia, maybe he understands something wrong, maybe you need to contact the administrator, what will he say. And his friends are watching my topic, of course it's good, but you can't be so unfriendly, we've known each other for a long time, it turns out. We need to solve such issues together, not separately, we know who you were, why refuse now, I know all these people. Let's make peace rather than quarrel. Yes, Alan, and why did you close the mail for me, everything is visible here, think about it...

    Gennadiy - Ed's thread here has been derailed (mainly - and I apologise - by people attacking me and me explaining myself).


    LENR is not understood. Ed has been around a long time. Anyone brave enough to advance possible mechanisms, or parts of mechanisms, is to be applauded. I will probably give Ed a hard time - if he posts here - in the sense that my way of trying to understand what other people say is quite challenging. But that is OK. Things can have issues, or be partly wrong, and still have value. Until LENR is understood anyone willing to advance rational mechanisms and engage in dialog is doing a useful job.


    So lets get back to Ed's original project here. It does not from my POV in any way detract from anything you post.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    QED predicts with exquisite accuracy from a very simple fundamental set of rules (no fudges) an enormous number of experimental results.

    As a well accepted forum clown THHuxleynew is allowed to spread his positive and negative fantasies.

    4-He as a fusion result has been proven at 10x background already in 1991 wenn Russ George did analyze a sono-fusion target foil. So THH simply is an ignorant.


    His claim that QED is a theory of high value is based on the standard model church claims made by their adepts.


    QED as given by the basic action operator (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics green box) is a silly fail as the claimed 4 potential just is a mathematical fantasy. The electron produces 3 fields and the strongest one is ignored by the model.... Why because it (the magnetic moment field) does not follow the 4-potential...


    Mills experimentally did produce and measure in all detail H*-H* that is close (in fact > 1 % off) to one of his Di-Hydrino fantasy particles. H*-H* is also produced by Holmlid in larger clusters on styrene catalysts. It can be exactly given the new SO(4)physics model. It is classically said a spin bond of the electroweak flux of the two involved protons.



    H*-H* is a dead end unless you do not couple it with a LENR active structure. In elements with highly mobile internal charge like Nickel you can promote Ni+H*-H* to produce various Ni,Cu,Zn isotopes as Brillouin (Godes) did analyze with very high precision.

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.