RG version here

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381254095_Consistency_of_Helium_Production_with_the_Excess_Power_in_the_Palladium-D2O_Electrochemical_System&ved=2ahUKEwjf6-GNkIqKAxUUd2wGHULoDgUQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ERNaRqOvL7NqAjrA_-nIp

plus a little bit more in the acknowledgement section than in the Elsevier version

"

The author (M.H.M.) appreciates that the Office of Naval Research (ONR) provided support for

this cold fusion research at China Lake over several years. Unfortunately, this support abruptly

ended in 1995, and this was followed by the banning of further cold fusion research at China Lake

by my management. This ending of my support at China Lake coincided with the 1995 attack on

my cold fusion research by Steve Jones of BYU who did not inform me in advance. Thus, I could

not prepare a “back-to-back” rebuttal in this issue of the Journal of Physical Chemistry which is

the usual and proper custom for such cases of scientific journal disputes.

Brian Oliver of Rockwell International was never considered as a supporter of cold fusion, but his

very accurate He-4 measurements were essential for this correlation of excess heat and He-4

production.

Consistency of helium production with the excess power in the palladium-D2O electrochemical system (PDF)

New Theoretical Relationship For Helium-4 Production By Cold Fusion Electrolysis. Experiment Evidence That Fleischmann-Pons Were Correct In Their Reports For Cold Fusion.

Here I'm explaining, why is hot fusion DD fusion seldom toward He4. The formation of symmetrical product He-4 requires thermal equilibrium of neutron distribution between helium atoms, which can be established only within cold fusion system with "slow" neutrons and "heavy" electrons (compare Widom-Larsen theory in this regard). We can find analogies of it for chemical thermodynamics, for example the formation of symmetric hydrogen peroxide during slow oxidation of hydrogen at low temperatures and so own.

Palladium catalyzes cold fusion probably by establishing of nanocracks along crystal domains where deuterium get strongly absorbed and arranged into linear chains which serve as a waveguides for neutrons. We can again find many analogies in surface catalysis, where reactions lead into highly thermodynamically unfavorable and metastable products by confining their constituents into 2D surfaces. In this regard the cold fusion utilizes 1-D chain catalysis, which is more rare but even more effective. Another indicia of this model is the fact that cold fusion runs better at low temperatures, because hot lattice kills linear arrangement of atoms by making it less statistically probable.

YouTube LENR presentation: Science's Lost Breakthroughs: Trailblazers of Transmutation and LENR

Science never "loses" but ignores.

Edit on public demand: science rarely loses but ignores often.

is it AI helpfull fore that ?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

YouTube LENR presentation: Science's Lost Breakthroughs: Trailblazers of Transmutation and LENR

Science never "loses" but ignores.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Science never "loses" but ignores.

How would you know it never loses? If something is lost, there is no trace of it in the literature and you can't tell it was ever there. This reminds me of the joke where the teacher says, "anyone absent from class should please raise your hand."

Quote

How would you know it never loses? If something is lost, there is no trace of it in the literature and you can't tell it was ever there

Well, by the same logics that science should able to prove it had lost this literature for being able to claim it had lost something.. Apparently the above claim is based on oxymoron and as such it's unprovable. Like the claim the wood falling in forest makes sound even when no one is there for to listen it. Maybe it can really fall without sound, why not.
Some trees may fall slowly while hanging on other trees with their branches.

It's easy to lose information, when you're ignoring its existence systematically - but this ignorance always comes first. This is to say, I opposed the above claim because it's just an evasion of ignorance. BTW You as an archiver of largest LENR library must know very well, that the best prevention of the lost is the active interest about subject.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Well, by the same logics that science should able to prove it had lost this literature for being able to claim it had lost something.. Apparently the above claim is based on oxymoron and as such it's unprovable.

I do not follow what you mean.

Say there was a claim X made in 1920. It was published but the journal went out of business and there are no copies remaining. No one knows about X. It vanished without a trace. You cannot know it was lost -- or prove it was lost -- because no one alive remembers anything about it.

There may be hundreds of such claims. Or there may be none. However, given that many claims were lost for time and later rediscovered, such as Mendel's genetics, it seems likely to me that many others were lost. They may still be lost, never having been rediscovered. Or they were discovered again and everyone assumes the second discovery was the first time.

Quote

It was published but the journal went out of business and there are no copies remaining. There may be hundreds of such claims. Or there may be none.

This is what the tautology - i.e. claim without true value - is called. You're basing your argumentation on void claims. I'm sure that the amount of ignored or classified publications is way higher than the amount of randomly lost info (the existence of which in unprovable anyway).

Quote from Zephir_AWT

This is what the tautology - i.e. claim without true value - is called. You're basing your argumentation on void claims.

There are many examples of discoveries that were lost, later discovered, and then people found out they had been made previously. Surely there must also be some that were made previously but we never realized that. After all, millions of large and small innovations have been made. It cannot be that they were all preserved. This quote illustrates what I mean:

"The historian in his or her study can easily describe the early history of the steam engine as an evolutionary process, beginning with imaginative speculators such as Branca, de Caus, the Earl of Worcester and going on to include von Guericke, Hautefeuille, Huygens, Papin and then Savery, before Newcomen rounds off the story with his successful engine of 1712. However, our experiences in building and operating an exact replica of the 1712 engine (at one third scale it stands five metres high) has convinced us of the original genius of Newcomen, a real hero-engineer. Problems, not mentioned in any of the literature, were met and overcome; the true functions of the key components were fully understood and their relationship to the operation of the engine appreciated. More recently, Mr. Michael Bailey and his team have begun experiments on the full-scale, working replica of the locomotive Planet that they have built for the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry. Much has already been learned that is not to be found in the written records."

- Cardwell, Donald. Wheels, Clocks, and Rockets: A History of Technology (Norton History of Science) (p. 498). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Even in prosaic fields such as computer programming I have seen examples of this. In books, discussion groups, and places like that I sometimes read comments by young programmers that "we have discovered thus-and-such technique." A method of sorting or indexing, for example. I think to myself, "yes, that is how we did batch processing in 1978 with 16 KB of RAM." I have textbooks from that time. Many of these algorithms were written down, which is how I learned them. Many others were common sense or passed along by older programmers . . . and then forgotten. There is no need to know the kinds of techniques you must use with 16 KB.

The thing is, knowledge of technology and science is not binary. It is a spectrum, with infinite shades between knowledge and ignorance. It can be learned or forgotten, or partially forgotten.

I recently saw a documentary about Linotype machines. People still know how to operate them. There are still a few in use. But I doubt that in a hundred years anyone will know how to use one. They will certainly not know all of techniques a skilled operator knows.

Quote from JedRothwell

Problems, not mentioned in any of the literature, were met and overcome; the true functions of the key components were fully understood and their relationship to the operation of the engine appreciated.

The point is, if no one had gone to the trouble of making a Newcomen engine, we would never fully know how they work. Some of the discovery would have been lost.

There is a fanatical guy on the Internet who has a large collection of old computers. He has managed to make several of them operational. He recently brought back to life what is probably the oldest running computer in the US:

You have to admire his enthusiasm. See minute 25 to 30. "We just got another bell! That's so cool!"

He has a dedicated band of people who know a lot about these things. They get together to solve problems and rediscover how these machines work. He says the documentation is often inadequate. If no one ever did this, I doubt anyone would fully understand how a Bendix G15 computer works.

(His wife is Japanese, so I suppose she understands this kind of fanatical dedication to a useless skill. I do get a sense she is fed up with it. Perhaps not now. It is probably okay with her because it seems this guy is making a decent living from his YouTube videos and his many followers. He took an interesting tour of Japan shown in one of his videos. He visited museums with antique computers and other machines.)

I have worked in several industries over my life. At each of them was a “the way things are done” operation of some sort. A certain way to do things, or a special order to do things on a job that must be adhered to. New people to the company would often try to innovate the ‘special method’ with new changes that would be resisted by the experienced employees. The older employees themselves didn’t necessarily know why specifically some changes would cause problems, but they knew any changes usually caused a problem somehow. The oldest employees usually knew that the ‘special method’ was the ultimate and somewhat unstable collection of shortcuts and know-how accumulated over decades. The special method was the fruit of hundreds of people trying to save labor and was an ecosystem of knowledge that needed to be understood deeply before meddling with individual components.