The cold fusion is deeply reversible, as it follows from the lack of radiation and similar stuffs
If cold fusion were reversible (at normal temperatures), then it cannot produce heat either?! Or do you think that warming some helium will generate transmutations (hydrogen isotopes)?
Perhaps that is your problem: relying on selected phrases and articles culled from Wikipedia.
I had never read the Wikipedia article until a few minutes ago, so I don't rely on it. But if you think it is wrong, by all means cite an appropriate reference with a contrary view.
Further, are we not writing of le Châtelier with respect to CF? I don't see any reversibility there either
It is precisely for this reason that Le Chatelier's principle is not applicable to CF.
20. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein said catalyst comprises nickel powder.
If Nickel is a catalyst it cannot also be a fuel/ash. And if it is not a fuel/ash, those isotopic changes were not real.
Appropriate sequestration, escape or other manipulations can push reactions far from "native" equilibrium. This is le Châtelier per se.
I suppose magnesium metal will "sequester" the oxygen in CO2 and H20 and when burnt. You might get some hydrocarbons, H2, CO etc. But this has little to do with Le Chatelier's principle. The reaction would not be reversible. It would not be "close to equilibrium".
You might want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle if you still think my insistence on equilibrium is not appropriate.
LENR stands for Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions,
I don't think "nano-scale" reaction has any scientific meaning does it? All reactions, whether chemical or nuclear occur at much smaller scales (atomic and sub-atomic scales). The term is confusing as most people have considered LENR to be about NUCLEAR reactions. My guess is that someone somewhere wanted to apply for funding and wanted to drop the contentious Nuclear for the more fashionable Nanoscale. The usual "not invented here" syndrome. Maybe @AlainCo can advise on the origin.
I wouldn't overstate the matter.
Congratulations on your new tactics. I look forward to more considered posts.
Rossi has never cared about the ISCMNS community.
Both Defkalion and Rossi always feared scrutiny by competent scientists. This is why neither ever submitted their devices to independent validation, etc.
For years now, my effort has been to encourage genuine scientific research.
And what have you achieved over these years? You have recently claimed here to be in a position to facilitate research. What are you actually doing? Are you actually proposing genuine scientific research or merely setting out to prove your belief in some kind of d-d fusion? Why don't you set the record straight? Or are your claims just more overstatement?
CO2 breaks in very hot with catalyst to CO. With CO you can do H2O reduction etc. There is routo to gasoline, diesel, plastics, ammonia etc. But it is not economical and temps are exreme hard to engineer. Plants do it when got light.
In theory, given enough Gibbs free energy you can make any reaction go backwards. As you say, photosynthetic plants do it. But Le Chatelier's principle is applicable to near equilibrium reactions. Of course if you heat any polyatomic molecule enough it will dissociate. In the case of CO2 you will not only make CO but also O2. Not very helpful. I gave a reference showing that this is NOT the way Syngas is made. But if anyone thinks I am wrong please cite practical (not necessarily economic) way of making syngas from an equilibrium mixture of CO2 and H2O.
Some people at the NRL disagree. They say the Mitsubishi transmutations are probably contamination. The only way to prove the transmutations come from cold fusion is to detect anomalous excess heat.
Excess heat is a very poor way to detect transmutation. Generally speaking nuclear methods are many orders of magnitude more sensitive. For example, 10^6 gammas per second would be an enormous signal far beyond the background and yet calorimetry would never detect it at all. As for transmutation MS, XRF, NAA are all appropriate methods and should be used together.
In the specific case of Iwamura's transmutations he showed that the increase in Praseodymium was time correlated with the decrease in Caesium. As this is much better than the correlation of excess heat with helium evolution, it would be inconsistent to accept the latter yet reject the former.
The judge has decided IH have cases to answer including fraud, this is just facts.
No. The Judge has decided that Rossi must now substantiate his claims with evidence to be presented in Court. Similarly IH et al. may also present evidence. Given that 50% of the Rossi claims have already been dismissed without the need of any evidence at all, my guess is that the good enginneer is going to find himself in some difficuty. After all, if the plaintiffs had any real evidence, they could have brought some of it to the Court's attention in the original action. In contrast, the defendants IH are NOT entitled to bring any evidence in a motion to dismiss, they can only cite Law. Quite rightly, the Law bends over backwards to help a potentially oppressed victim, the plaintiff. But woe betide any plaintiff who makes a spurious claim!
So half of Rossi's claims have been dismissed! That's a major victory for IH and shows that a modest amount of money invested in good attorneys has been well spent. It's such a shame though, that any money at all has to be spent on legal costs instead of LENR research!
Just imagine! If Rossi had convinced IH that everything worked, he would be $89 M richer and all over the world funds would be pouring in to finance yet more LENR research. Just think of the ovation these guys could have expected at ICCF-20 in China and Japan. I can imagine the ISCMNS President in a tuxedo presenting Rossi with the Minoru Toyoda Gold medal to rapturous applause of scientists and the press...
But no, this dream is not to be. Greed, stupidity, incompetence or worse seem to have got in the way. We would do well not to confuse dreams and wishful thinking with reality. This forum is full of posts showing how a dream became a nightmare. Will we learn the lesson? I have my doubts.
It seems strange that low energy transition are slower than high energy transition...
All things being equal (e.g. spin/parity considerations), higher energy photons (gamma decay) will be emitted faster than lower energy ones. You'll find justification in most nuclear texts.
Le Chatelier's principle. 
This is about equilibrium thermodynamics. ie mathematically
deltaG - deltaH - T.deltaS where deltaG is the Gibbs free energy, deltaH is the Helmholz entalpy, T is the absolute temperature and deltaS is the entropy change.
The first point to bear in mind is that thermodynamics does not tell us much about rates of reaction. TNT is perfectly stable for hundreds if not millions of years.
Secondly if detalS is close to zero compared to deltaH, temperature or pressure changes are going to have negligible effects. This is always the case for MeV reactions outside extreme stellar temperatures and pressures.
And @Longview, you cannot make synthesis gas from steam and CO2 (for the above reasons).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas
@Zephir_AWT Exactly my point. If you displace a system in equilibrium it remains close to equilibrium and Le Chatelier's principle is valid (Gibb's free energy close to 0). If in contrast a system is far from equilibrium then there is no effect. For example heating / compressing a mixture of steam and CO2 will not synthesize gasoline.
Could you please explain this so a nuclear physicist can understand? What's the Hagelstein limit?
Peter Hagelstein calculated that if 4He were formed in a deuterated environment its recoil in any 24 MeV reaction would be such as to accelerate other deuterons which in turn would cause low level hot fusion including 2.45 MeV neutrons. As we don't see the expected number of fast neutrons, the implication is that we don't have many fast alphas either. Hagelstein's calculation has not been verified experimentally but there is no evidence that is wrong AFAIK.
Hermes suggests the obvious, thinking that nobody else has thought of it, and offensively, like "why are you so stupid as to think," and then he says the opposite of what I think.
Lomax it is you make "blatant typos" and then blame me for being offensive for words I neither articulated nor implied.
Anyway let me make another obvious statement. Yours was not a typo but another misconception of physics. Your repeated inappropriate references to gammas and nuclear transions demonstrates this. The real problem Lomax is that you are so obsessed with being right at any cost that you feel the need to distort the facts, manipulate and insult those who dare to disagree. For you LENR is a religion and any evidence which contradicts your beliefs must be dismissed, ridiculed or ignored.
There are many people in this forum who sincerely want to learn. There are some who are honest enough to admit they are wrong (e.g. Jed). But your only purpose seems to be show off. You come here claiming to facilitate research. But when challenged about your experience and qualifications for such role you take offence and evade the questions. Suit yourself. People will make their own conclusions.
On one side are those who inquire, examine, experiment, research, propose ideas and subject them to scrutiny, change their minds when shown to be wrong and live with uncertainty while placing reliance on the collective, self-critical, responsible and rigorous use of reason and observation to further the quest for knowledge.
On the other side are those who espouse a belief system which pre-packages all the answers, who have faith in it, who trust the repeated mantras of authorities, priests and prophets, and who either think that the hows and whys of the universe are explained to satisfaction by their faith, or smugly embrace ignorance. If the "gods" proposed d+d fusion that is what it must be. If historically they used calorimetry, however unsuitable this may be today, that is the sacred path we must follow.
Your review paper is an example of pre-packaged answers. It contains no discussion of possible artifacts, no discussion of alternative models to explain helium production other than deuterium fusion. In other words, it presents an unbalanced view where reality is only portrayed in the extremes of black and white.
@Zephir_AWT Le Chatelier's principle only applies to systems close to equilibrium. Even in a Tokamak or the center of the Sun thermal energies are many orders of magnitude lower than nuclear energies and consequently the systems are far from equilibrium.
about the fragmentation of the He4* nucleus
Fragmentation of the excited He4* takes place on a nuclear timescale of about 10^-22 S. This is the same order of magnittude as the time it takes for a photon to traverse the diameter of the nucleus. As nothing can travel faster than light there can be no faster processes overtake the speed of fragmentation.
However any channel including fragmentation can be suppressed if it becomes endothermic. So for example in the Meulenberg DDL model, the collapsing mini molecule could radiate away some energy. Similarly in the Storms model. The issue is that electronic transitions are even slower than nuclear ones and hot fusion would take place long before sufficient energy were lost in small unobserved quanta. During collapse, by far the most likely (hot) fusion reaction is p+d as Swinger, Preparata and others pointed out in 1989. This is because the light proton can penetrate the Coulomb barrier much more efficiently than the heavier deuteron. Of course this is not observed so we should look elsewhere for an explanation.
N.B. When we talk of "slow" reactions, this is a relative term. 24 MeV gammas are emitted by He4* in 10^-16 S!
What you are unaware of, Hermes, is that we know this. And we are paying attention to physics.
So you are paying attention to physics without even attempting to find an explanation!
We do not know what the reaction is.
Perhaps a little less arrogance would be in order then? I wonder why you assume there is but 1 reaction?
8Be will normally spontaneously fission within about a femtosecond, and that would generate a very hot gamma,
Well I can see you are not a physicist. Why would you expect a hot gamma if 8Be were to fission? You are right in supposing that the life-time for ground state 8Be fission is about a femtosecond.
In the case of Takahashi's tetrahedral condensation, any 8Be formed would be in a highly excited state and would fission without any Coulomb barrier some 7 orders of magnitude faster, say 1e-22 S. This time is far shorter than the time required for an electromagnetic transition and consequently there will be no/few gammas. That's good because no gammas are observed. The energy would instead be carried away by two 23.8 MeV alphas. We would therefore expect knock on effects (neutrons, Hagelstein limit). That's a problem. But maybe the Hagelstein limit is wrong - nobody has verified it experimentally AFAIK.
When a physicist is given the evidence, with a duty to actually review it, they understand the problem. Robert Duncan is a great case in point. Are you saying that Robert Duncan doesn't "pay attention to physics"?
This proves my point that cogent reasoning rather than insult is more likely to lead to agreement. And I agree, reasoning should be based on evidence in preference to assumptions.
And no I never mentioned Robert Duncan so you are not entitled to infer that I think he doesn't "pay attention to physics". This is another strawman argument.
I make this prediction: within two years, a major cold fusion skeptic will comment that his earlier conclusions were wrong, and there is something of high interest going on in these experiments. I have excellent communication with the fellow, but, again, no permission to disclose what has been said.
Appeal to authority?? Anonymous authority? Why bother to inform us? An argument rests on its own merits not on the reputation of its proponent. I wasn't aware that there were any cold fusion skeptics left. Maybe you are referring to
@Mary Yugo!
My unstated purpose for asking you to outline your screening calculations was to learn at least one solid way of obtaining this.
Here is the C code I use:-
/* Returns gamow suppression factor in log10 units */
double gamow(unsigned A, unsigned Z, unsigned A4, unsigned Z4, double Q)
{
double rs, rc, r, G, m;
/* Estimate distance between 2 spherical nuclei when they touch */
rs = 1.1 * (pow(A, .333333) + pow(A4, .333333)); /* Distances in fm */
/* Estimate distance when supplied energy has overcome Coulomb barrier */
rc = ((double)Z) * Z4 * 1.43998 / Q; /* fm */
r = rs / rc;
/* if r >= 1 there is no Coulomb barrier to cross! */
G = r >= 1 ? 0 : acos(sqrt(r)) - sqrt(r * (1. - r));
m = ((double)A * A4) / (A + A4); /* Reduced mass */
return 0.2708122 *Z *Z4 *G *sqrt(m / Q);
} /* gamow */
I can give dozens -- hundreds! -- more examples from science, technology, business, banking, agriculture . . . You name it, I know of examples.
Jed I don't doubt you can find more examples. You do well to remind us of human fallibility. Your stories are informative and entertaining. But just because an individual or two, out of the millions have made errors of judgement, should not imply that the entire establishment is to blame. I pointed out, that with the benefit of hindsight, F & P made erroneous claims. Those errors are not cancelled out by you claiming that other scientists also made errors.
