Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

Dear Edmund Storms!

It is known that neutrinos are different. I propose to influence the proton with neutrinos of the appropriate energy and frequency, and not with those that are flooded in the environment.

The environment is flooded not only with different neutrinos, but, for example, with various electromagnetic waves, but our cell phone only responds to certain electromagnetic waves.

Why do you think neutrinos would have any effect at all? Do you know of any observed behavior that supports such an idea? As Alan notes, why suggest an idea that has no possibility of being implemented? I'm getting the idea that this discussion involves the wrong people.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

In fact, to start a chain reaction of cold nuclear fusion, I propose to “bombard” the nuclei of a hydrogen atom (protons) with neutrinos, since there is no Coulomb barrier for neutrinos.

Surely you know that neutrinos hardly react with matter at all. The environment is awash in neutrinos so any you might add, even if you had a source, would be trivial. Please do some study before making suggestions. Here is a source of information.

Neutrino - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

Dear Edmund Storms!

How do you view the use of tritium T or palladium Pd107 (which emit neutrinos) as a catalyst for a cold fusion chain reaction with deuterium and palladium?

In my opinion, success can be achieved along this path.

I have no answer to this question because the behavior shows no relationship to the presence of Pd107. The heat is generated ONLY by a fusion reaction involving isotopes of hydrogen. Transmutation makes some energy but too little to be important. Tritium is a nuclear product of the other fusion reactions that can fuse if it is present in the material. Normally, too little tritium is present to be important.

Let's see if we can agree on some basic facts. Perhaps this exercise can identify where the conflict is most intense.

1. Society needs a source of heat energy that is inexpensive, nonpolluting, and comes from a sustainable source.

2. The cold fusion effect supplies energy having these characteristics because the source is water and the nuclear products are not harmful.

3. In order to increase and control a source of energy, its operating mechanism needs to be understood and controlled.

4. The energy produced by the cold fusion effect results from fusion between hydrogen nuclei, either H or D.

5. Fusion between nuclei requires their separation to be reduced so that their nuclear energy states can interact.

6. The separation can be reduced only by the reduction of the Coulomb barrier.

7. The Coulomb barrier can be reduced by the presence of electrons.

Problems to be solved:

1. Identify how the NAE can be produced in large concentrations.

2, Identify how the D or H can be rapidly assembled in the NAE.

3. Identify how the electrons can be rapidly assembled in the NAE.

4. Identify how the energy resulting from fusion can be dissipated while momentum is conserved.

5. Identify how the mechanism can be controlled in a practical energy generator.

I can solve all of these problems using my model. Can you?

Quote from Drgenek

Ed is very popular on this forum. His work is promoted because it has been valued. His work is promoted in more threads than anyone else. Some of them are very long. So, his work has been seriously discussed. It just isn't convincing for the reasons indicated by Huxley. The measurements are valid, but heat yields are too small to justify a commercial approach.

Thanks for the support. I have described how cold fusion works using all of the observed behaviors which are described by a logical relationship. The implications are profound and show how new measurements should be made to achieve a full understanding. The model even shows how a practical generator could be designed. The amount of power is small at the present time only because we do not fully apply the conditions needed to produce increased power. My model shows how this can be done.

Rather than discuss nonsense based on imagination, why not discuss actual measurements and actual behavior? As for being convincing, I'm at a loss to understand how much more evidence a person needs. Dozens of experts working at major laboratories have produced the effect hundreds of times. We only need the will and money to apply the understanding.

Hi nkodama

I do not want to be insulting but your attached description of cold fusion is word salad. It has no meaning either in chemistry or physics. So, I have no idea how to reply. If you want to make a useful comment, you need to learn and acknowledge how the process actually behaves and how elections are known to behave. For example, what you call fento-H2 does not exist in Nature. The D2 molecule, which contains two electrons, does not fuse under any condition. The electrons do not bring the two nuclei together.

You are correct in saying that the Lawson criteria does not apply because the effect does not occur in plasma. In fact, when fusion occurs in plasma at high applied energy, the fusion process involves a different mechanism and produces different nuclear products. Therefore, these two kinds of fusion have NO relationship to each other.

You are correct in saying that electrons are required to lower the Coulomb barrier. How you apply this idea is the problem because you ignore the observed behavior. Please read my paper before trying to explain something.

Hi Alan,

The behavior has been and can be reproduced many different ways using electrolysis, direct reaction with D2 or H2 gas, application of low voltage gas discharge, or by laser stimulation. Making a material nuclear active is the only challenge. The present conflict in understanding involves how to form the nuclear active environment ( NAE). Once the NAE is formed, the conflict in understanding involves how the hydrogen nuclei are assembled and how the resulting Coulomb barrier is reduced. The next conflict involves how the energy is dissipated such that the momentum can be conserved when only a single nuclear product is formed. In other words, a series of mysteries must be solved with each solution being consistent with all the others. Right now, such consistency does not exist in any of the popular explanations. I have tried to achieve such consistency in my explanation.

Of course, most people do not try to reach a Nobel Prize. The Prize is given when a new understanding of Nature is achieved at the basic level. Cold fusion is impossible to explain using the present understanding of Nature. Therefore, a new natural process is involved. This new process will involve a new and important understanding of Nature, or more exactly electron behavior. Electrons apparently behave in ways that have never before been considered. Instead of discussing pure imagination fueled by ego, let's discuss where the "gold" is actually buried.

I should not have to tell you this but the idea for the need to falsify an idea only applies to mathematics. It does not apply to physical observations. Numerous people seeing the same behavior verify physical observations. The need to falsify does not apply.

In the case of cold fusion, the behavior has been witnessed hundreds of times by many dozens of people using a variety of methods. Overwhelming evidence supports the reality. The only question is, “How does the fusion process work”? I have explained the basic process while using ALL of the observed behavior. No other “theory” does this. If you want to be useful, I suggest you discuss my ideas wuith the goal to understand the details that must operate to cause the observed behavior. The Nobel Prize is hiding in the details.

This discussion is the most gross waste of time I have ever seen. This is like trying to debate the question "Is the Earth really round or Does the Earth really revolve around the Sun?". We have intelligence and talent on this Forum. Why not use it productively? Why not try to figure out how LENR works? A Nobel Prize and millions in profit would be the reward.

Shane, I'm not suggesting that energy is used as a criterion for acceptance. However, a rational question would be, "How is the excess power measured and what method is used to make excess power?" A focus on energy means they have a technological mindset. This mindset has been the death of understanding in this field.

I sent them a proposal. We will see how they respond. Frankly, I have very little expectation because they are interested in the amount of energy being produced. This variable has absolutely no importance when research is done. The amount of power only has to be large enough to be accurately measured by the calorimeter. Because my calorimeter is accurate to ±0.005 W, I require very little power to make the measurements. The amount of energy is determined only by how long I maintain the power, which makes this an entirely arbitrary number.

Quote from Curbina

About this paper from Hubler et al, I asked the author at ResearchGate if they had performed any analysis of the deposits in the electrode that gave the anomalous heat, as I am sure the results had been interesting if this had been done.

His answer was that they had not performed any analysis because they had run outof funds soon after these experiments were performed. This is the kind of stuff that makes any LENR reearcher's blood boil when confronted with the pilfering budget and delays of the ITER project. If we only had half of the initial 5 billion euros committed to ITER in 2006, where could LENR be now?

The problem is not the absence of money. The problem is the absence of the ability to focus on a subject and seek to find the answer to simple questions. I have attempted on the LENR Forum to explore the facts and logic that would lead to a correct understanding of how LENR works. On both occasions, the discussion was hijacked by people who have no interest in exploring any idea except their own.

I have discovered this flaw is common within this field, so my complaint is not just about my experience here. I have watched for the last 32 years as nonsense is accepted without effective debate. I have watched as people bemoan the rejection of this claim by normal scientists, yet provide only conflict and confusion about the basic behaviors as justification for the reality. I have watched as my efforts consisting of two books and nearly 100 published papers describing the subject are largely ignored in favor of ideas and conclusions that have no relationship to reality or to observed behavior. The effort to understand reality is always difficult but the process is done with much greater skill by people involved with the other sciences.

Naturally, the response to my complaint is that this is just my opinion. That is true, but some opinions are clearly better than others. I spent 36 years in fields of science in which opinions were based on facts. My opinions are based on facts. In this field, and especially on the LENR Forum, most opinions are not based on facts, yet they are held with extreme confidence.

So, I have given up wasting my time here. I have very little confidence that this phenomenon will ever be mastered and applied. Society is entering a time of great trouble. Cold fusion is now the least of our problems.

Quote from Alan Smith

Ed, I have taken the liberty of writing my own version of your list, but I a tongue-tied in number 5.

1. LENR differs from all other nuclear processes because it takes place in particular chemical and physical environments which have certain defined characteristics.

2. This defined characteristic can be produced in a variety of materials, but most readily in PdD.

3. The required characteristic can be activated by many different treatments, including electrolysis, direct reaction with D2 or H2 gas, gas discharge at low energy, cavitation, and application of sonic vibration or laser light.

4. When deuterium is present, He4 is produced in an amount that has a clear relationship to the amount of energy produced. The He4/energy ratio is consistent with the very unique value for D+D=He4 reaction. When hydrogen is also present tritium may be produced.

5. An energy barrier prevents D from fusing to form He4 under most conditions. For fusion to take place, this barrier must be overcome. It can be overcome by applying kinetic energy to the D nuclei. However, this fusion reaction does not produce He4.

Display More

Alan, why is #5 a problem for you? The ICCF-25 conference is focused on this problem. We have a simple fact. Cold fusion makes He4 while He4 is not made when kinetic energy is applied. Why is the behavior different when energy is applied compared to when no energy is applied? When energy is applied, the He4 fragments into 4 different parts. Why?

Quote from Diadon Acs

I only disagreed with your first statement and gave a clear reason why. It is unproductive to separate chemical and nuclear energy levels for us to explain the observed phenomena when there is obviously crossover happening.
How can chemical processes be separated from nuclear one's, isn't that an illogical statement?
This may be one of the reasons why so many researchers have decided to call this phenomenon electrochemical nuclear synthesis to be more specific in what seems to be a blurring understanding of new physics, like you have suggested.

I have answered your questions, is there a possibility you could attempt to answer mine good sir?

Obviously, the chemical conditions create a condition that interacts with the nucleus in this one unique case. The challenge is to discover how and why this happens. Because the nuclear process happens only at certain sites, the situation at these sites becomes important. Consequently, the nature of these unique conditions must be identified in order to cause the effect to occur with control. Can you identify the required unique nature of these sites?

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Edmund, I tried to explain to you ... But you did not understand me ... Alpha particle - not to be confused with the helium-4 molecule, this is the building material for reactions in LENR installations. It is not obliged to fly out of the installation, since there are no FORCES that would push it or throw it out of the local area in which LENR reactions take place ... Palladium, nickel and other magnetic systems only help the LENR process - they help with their magnetic field .. Electron clusters also help this process with their magnetic field ... Therefore, it is not clear why you are worried when you do not detect helium-4 or an alpha particle with detectors ??? Think about it...

I understand you perfectly well. You aren't in my reality. You are not discussing the reality that I accept based on 300 years of collective experience. You have created your own reality. Your description is not consistent with the observed behavior that I accept. You have created a new reality that lives in your imagination. I understand what you say. I simply do not want to enter your reality. I'm asking you and other people to leave their own reality and join mine.

Quote from Diadon Acs

I disagree with the first statement on the basis of a false dichotomy. All environments in our current understanding of physics are simultaneously chemical and nuclear, it's just systems at different scales. So I will disregard that statement as not being relevant to the discussion.

Please identify a single example of why you disagree. in fact, the cold fusion idea was rejected simply because all conventional nuclear reactions act independently of their chemical environment because the energy levels are so different. This simple fact makes LENR uniquely impossible to explain using conventional understanding, the application of pure imagination notwithstanding.

I will try again to describe a path that we might follow to reach a useful understanding of LENR. Please focus on what I'm saying rather than on your own favorite ideas. I will first list some facts that are supported by hundreds of studies. I will ask if you agree or not. If not, say why not? If you agree please answer the final questions.

1. LENR differs from all other nuclear processes because it takes place in a chemical environment. In addition, this environment has to have certain rare characteristics.

2. This characteristic can be produced in a variety of materials, but most often in PdD.

3. The required characteristic can be activated by many different treatments, including electrolysis, direct reaction with D2 or H2 gas, gas discharge at low energy, cavitation, and application of sonic vibration.

4. When deuterium is present, He4 is produced in an amount that has a clear relationship to the amount of energy produced. The He4/energy ratio is consistent with the very unique value for D+D=He4 reaction.

5. An energy barrier prevents D from fusing to form He4 under most conditions. For fusion to take place, this barrier must be overcome. It can be overcome by applying kinetic energy to the D nuclei. However, this fusion reaction does not produce He4.

These are the facts. The question is, "How can the barrier to the reaction be overcome without applying kinetic energy in order to produce He4"? What is the nature of the special condition that must exist in material to cause this process to occur on rare occasions? How can this condition be created in larger amounts?

Can anyone answer these questions?

Thanks for the video. The subject of cosmetology is a good model to show how flawed the human mind really is in its efforts to understand reality. However, what we believe about the Big Bang has no relationship to the survival of civilization. In contrast, what is believed about LENR may make all the difference in whether the CO2 problem is solved in time or not. Nevertheless, we can see in the behavior demonstrated in the vdeo just how flawed and unable intelligent people are in being able to focus on their long-term self-interests. We see this same flaw demonstrated in politics these days with catastrophic consequences. Apparently, the present humans are not designed to survive the technological age. At least 5 other human designs went extinct before our version arrived on Earth. Looks like our version will be number 6 to be replaced eventually. This video shows the flaw that will cause this to happen. People can not agree about what is real and will even kill to eliminate what they do not believe. At least now the killing has stopped.

I have learned an important lesson about why no progress is made in understanding LENR. When an opportunity is provided here to discuss the subject, the discussion is overwhelmed by certain individuals who have their own very strongly held beliefs so that a shared understanding can not develop. No one is present who can say, "Shut up and listen" or "Stick to the subject". So we are treated to a series of random thoughts having no relationship to each other. At least in a bar when this happens, the people who try to dominate the discussion can be told to leave by the largest person in the group.

As you all might have forgotten, the subject is supposed to be

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

I have provided the evidence for and the resulting conclusions about LENR in two papers. I have asked for comments. Instead, we have been treated to speculations based on imagination that have very little contact with reality. The discussion is dominated by people who have an unwillingness to change their opinions or to entertain other ideas. Frankly, I have better use for my time.