I would like to engage the wise counsel of the LF community to post the link to what they feel is the best LENR paper in their mind. The goal here is to critique this paper communally so that in the future we improve the chances of publishing a LENR positive result in a mainstream journal.
Vote for currently BEST PAPER on LENR
-
Do you mean the best paper ever? The best paper of the last 10 years?
I think the best paper ever was the first one:
Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. 261: p. 301 and errata in Vol. 263.
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf
It was the most consequential.
-
Best paper post the original
?
-
?
I think Daniel_G meant published after the original from Fleischmann and Pons in the JOAE?
-
30 years without a positive LENR publication in the mainstream journals
(PDF) A Synopsis of Nuclear Reactions in Condensed MatterPDF | We have sought to identify, characterize, elucidate and apply condensed matter nuclear reactions using the US patented co-deposition protocol,... | Find,…www.researchgate.netElectrolytic co-deposition neutron production measured by bubble detectorsCo-deposition electrochemical cells are a simple means to examine novel nuclear reactions. In this study, palladium and deuterium atoms were co-deposi…www.sciencedirect.com -
I think the SRI report from Brillouin represents good science but for whatever reason they chose not to pursue publication in a mainstream journal. Does anyone know the reason for this?
I have asked some contacts if they can shed some light on this issue.
-
Re the SRI report, I think it was mainly for the comfort of Brillouin's investors, current and future. Putting it through (probably hostile) peer review would have delayed publication for anything up to a year.
-
So which of the actual research papers quoted in this review summary do you suggest is the most convincing LENR positive result publication?
I was just making the point that there have been positive results published in peer reviewed journals.
-
It is a tough choice. This is not current, but I guess I would say the best research project was Miles, Bush and Johnson. They published a number of papers, which you can find at the LENR-CANR library by entering:
First Author: Miles
All Authors: Bush
Here is the longest and most comprehensive paper:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf
I think this is the most compelling study because it addresses three important issues about cold fusion with one set of experiments, and one dataset:
- Is the excess heat real? Yes, the calorimetry is excellent, and it was repeated enough times to be sure it is real. In some tests the heat was much higher than the minimum threshold of the calorimeters.
- Does the effect produce helium in the same ratio to the heat as one D-D plasma fusion path? It sure does!
- What is the most important control factor? The cathode material. With the wrong material, it never works. With the best material, it always works, and it produces much higher heat.
. . . .This is an odd metric, but you can sort of tell this is outstanding work because THH refuses to look at it. He even said he is the only person who might be interested in it, meaning it is unimportant. On the contrary, this is one of the most important studies. If you do not know this in detail, you don't know much about cold fusion. You also need to know Storms, McKubre, and of course F&P. None of which THH or any other skeptic knows about. Skeptical comments are an inverse metric of importance. THH only discusses obscure and probably incorrect work. Skeptical comments are also inverse to the facts. Like all skeptics, THH gets every detail wrong, most recently assuming that Storms measures 5 mW, and that Miles threw away data from tests with leaks. This is what happens when you spout off about papers you have not read.
-
Yes I’m aware of this fact. We are attempting to narrow down the best reports and analyze whether they are fit to be published in the mainstream journals
The Miles work I just described was published in mainstream journals.
Miles, M., et al., Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99.
Miles M., B.F. Bush, and J.J. Lagowski, Anomalous effects involving excess power, radiation, and helium production during D2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. Fusion Technol., 1994. 25: p. 478.
Miles, M. and B.F. Bush, Heat and Helium Measurements in Deuterated Palladium. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(4T): p. 156.
Miles, M., B.F. Bush, and D.E. Stilwell, Calorimetric principles and problems in measurements of excess power during Pd-D2O electrolysis. J. Phys. Chem., 1994. 98: p. 1948.
-
The LENR truth should not be so unreacheable because LENRForum gives only 10Mo as upload capacity...
-
The LENR truth should not be so unreacheable because LENRForum gives only 10Mo as upload capacity...
That is a problem we are looking for ways to work around, but you can always upload to a google drive and share the link.
-
That is a problem we are looking for ways to work around, but you can always upload to a google drive and share the link.
Or you can split a pdf document into sections. Pretty easy if you use Chrome.
-
As a layperson, I nominate the work of the SPAWAR /GEC team;
Their peer reviewed paper convinced many like myself, who were drawn to LENR by Rossi, that "there is really something serious there". In otherwise, a true science, with real scientists involved.
And just this last ICCF24 in Silicon Valley, a few notable researchers duplicated their results.
