9 ms·

Transmutations observed from pressure cycling palladium

80 points by ogcricket 6y ago

flubert 6y ago
Detecting the presence of these transmuted elements should be much easier to replicate than trying to characterize "excess" heat, right? And the next step would be to try and find out what isotope of the transmuted elements was? Anyone know how much deuterium costs? https://thenewfire.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/nasa_transmutations_palladium_silver_metals_with_deuterium_gas_2020.pdf https://thenewfire.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/nasa_transmut...
- dumbfoundded 6y ago
  It depends. The transmuted elements could be viewed as contaminants while it'd be hard to explain away excess heat. There are so many sources of potential contamination. Random heat signatures not so much.
  - jiggawatts 6y ago
    It's the opposite. Heat is notoriously difficult to measure accurately, especially when small amounts are being produced or if the experiment runs over a long time. Heat can also have many sources, some of which aren't expected by even highly experienced experimenters. For example, hydrogen has spin isomers, and the conversion of orthohydrogen into parahydrogen releases energy. Metals like palladium can also release surprising amounts of energy due to lattice or adsorption effects. Graphite absorbs neutrons in reactors and can store sufficient energy in the lattice structure defects that it's a hazard if released too quickly. Electrical interference can produce currents that are absorbed in the metal. Residual magnetic fields release energy if the metal is demagnetised. Etc... Meanwhile, measuring the production of new elements is trivial, even in tiny amounts, and cannot possibly occur via only chemical processes. Crystal structure, phase transitions, external fields, etc... have no effect on this measurement. It is a simple, reliable, accurate measurement. If you see a scientist insisting that you pay attention to the unreliable metric and waves his hands to explain why you should ignore the reliable metric then it's a safe bet that he's either fooling you, or he fooled himself.
    - raziel2701 6y ago
      Yeah but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Right now the easiest explanation is contamination, ordinary and easy to explain.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        No. Claims Require Evidence. Maybe it's contamination. Maybe it is something interesting. Ordinary evidence will reveal which. Demanding extraordinary evidence is just defending turf, and not science.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        The level of evidence required increases with the audacity of the claim. That's because outrageous new physics is almost never the case, for the same reason that miracles or aliens are almost never (or just never) the explanation for something.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        "Extraordinary evidence" is usually interpreted, nowadays, as unobtainable evidence, with the effect that any discovery incompatible with current consensus is reflexively discounted. This is less often harmful in cases where the current consensus is based more on actual evidence than on groupthink and conformity. So, in physics, there is actual evidence for most things observable. But there are plenty of fields where fashion prevails. Without citing current problem children, geology until quite recently forbade mention of catastrophic events like bolide strikes, and psychology filtered all hypotheses through behaviorism.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        It's evidence so incontrovertible and ironcland that the chance it is wrong (or faked) is less than the chance the outrageous claim is true. This could be close to unobtainable, for sufficiently outrageous claims. The argument I am making goes all the way back to Hume's "Of Miracles". In the specific case of Cold Fusion and the like, the evidence is further impeached by the lack of progress. What's happening looks just like a pseudoscientific study of nothing that spits out bad results that never goes anywhere.
pjkundert 6y ago
Tests showing similar results were presented at the 2012 LENR conference, and probably before. I really wish they hadn’t been discounted as erroneous without attempts to replicate by the larger scientific community. We’d be much farther along by now, in capturing this extremely interesting result!
- cromwellian 6y ago
  But what about a control experiment? How about letting the PdAg sit in a vacuum for the same amount of time under similar conditions and see what develops? How do they rule out contamination, such as by cosmic rays?
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    If I read the abstract right, they did in fact have a control. They had the exact same palladium/silver mix in it, but didn't cycle D2, H2, or He in and out. It wound up with much fewer of the surprising elements.
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      Couldn't that be explained by the cycling introducing contamination (ie: along with the D2, H2, He it also brought in a few other atoms from the plumping or whatever)?
      - Filligree 6y ago
        Easily.
    - jiggawatts 6y ago
      But the "control" wasn't. It was a different coil, and they didn't characterise either of the coils' metallurgy prior to the experiment.
    - lumost 6y ago
      The addition of deuterium will open new avenues for reactions by cosmic rays.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
So cold fusion was real after all? They've got both transmutation of elements and excess heat.
- est 6y ago
  but what about gamma rays?
- marcinzm 6y ago
  As someone else pointed out, the transmuted elements are also what's common in the equipment they presumably used so could be just contamination. I believe they didn't find any elements you'd expect from these types of reactions but also wouldn't see in the equipment.
msie 6y ago
The experiment took place over several months which increases the chances of contamination.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  And all the newly found elements are elements that you'd find in a gas regulator and are at levels close to detection limit. It's all so reminiscent of polywater.
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    Yes that would have been my initial thought as well From the article: "Examining the exposed Pd25Ag tube reveals a scattering of anomalies on the surface of the tube. Large areas of Cu were observed as well as an area of Zn separate from the Cu, which may indicate that no CueZn alloy is present, removing the possibility of brass contamination. "
    - HarryHirsch 6y ago
      Zinc plating and copper plating? But that's not really the point, we are wondering about all sorts of contamination that could easily be ruled out through proper experiment design. Other people have discussed that.
amluto 6y ago
https://sci-hub.st/downloads/2020-10-06/8f/10.1016@j.ijhydene.2020.08.287.pdf https://sci-hub.st/downloads/2020-10-06/8f/10.1016@j.ijhyden...
gus_massa 6y ago
The anomalous heating is very difficult to measure and it is not going to convince anyone. The new elements they got, are much more interesting. The problem is that: * Cooper and Zinc that are the parts of brass. * Iron, Chrome and Manganese that are common in stainless steel. So the most simple explanation is contamination from the surrounding vessel and plumbing. It is also very strange that they didn't get Cadmium and Indium that are the direct product of fusion of Palladium and Silver with Hydrogen, Deuterium and Helium. It is like if there was a fusion and then the new atom split into smaller atoms like all the ones I listed before. It is strange.
- dumbfoundded 6y ago
  The odds that cold fusion has been discovered are 0.
  - jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
    I really think cold fusion is a prank. Like when my dad would send me out to buy "headlight fluid" just to mess with me.
    - dumbfoundded 6y ago
      I think it's like trying to prove P = NP. Maybe it's technically possible, but no one in their right mind thinks it's going to happen.
      - jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
        As far as I can tell, the only reason cold fusion is even a thing is because someone published a paper that has never been reproduced. P=NP is at least possible: it has to be true or untrue. I'm not even sure if our current understand of physics even supports cold fusion. I guess maybe it does seeing as how I got downvoted? Presumably by amazing scientists who have developed cold fusion technology? Or at least have a theory of how it could happen in our universe?
andrewflnr 6y ago
"International Journey of Hydrogen Energy"? Is this a real thing?
- colechristensen 6y ago
  Yes, it is an Elsevier journal. Specifically, it is not one of the citation mill fake journals which will publish anything.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    This paper does them no credit, though. Cold fusion hs associated with the crazy fringe, and for very good reasons.
    - im3w1l 6y ago
      As long as it's good work by credible scientists and filled with caveats about being a work in progress and that it may turn out to be nothing, I don't see the issue.
      - HarryHirsch 6y ago
        This paper is just crap, a contamination problem sold as a breakthrough. It's worse in cold fusion, cold fusion in palladium is almost feasible, given the low energy barrier for D-D fusion. The setting is quite like the lifetime of the proton, a decaying proton would open up new avenues of theory, unfortunately the next prediction for the half-life is just outside experimental capabilities. Anyway, first thing you do when you see a new paper is check what's journal it's in. If the journal has a crap reputation you skip it. This paper does nothing to improve the journal's standing, so the papers in there must be the usual "nothing new to see here, let's all move on" junk.
ggm 6y ago
Hard not to be sceptical. We could indulge the "but what if its true" but the energy balance would be very unfavourable and, absent "yes we have no neutrons" (being the title of the cold fusion book of record), its not emitting energy in a way consistent with science as we understand it.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Please be true! Cold fusion :) Interesting trivia: AuPd alloys are used for coating insulating surfaces with ~10 nm thick layer to make the surface conductive with small metallic grains to do high resolution scanning electron microscopy. https://ravescientific.com/education/37-proper-target-material-selection-when-coating-samples-using-an-sem-sputter-coater https://ravescientific.com/education/37-proper-target-materi... This particular % is not typically used (60/40 or 80/20 is), but it is close.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zaroth 6y ago
Last week we got cold superconduction. What would the trifecta be? EM drive working probably. Maybe the universe is trying to balance out the cosmic 2020 scale.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Cold superconduction is pretty familiar.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Ugh, that should have read warm. Warm superconductors, cold fusion, next up would be EM drive.
    - gus_massa 6y ago
      But in high temperature superconductivity there has been an steady progress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity#/media/File:Timeline_of_Superconductivity_from_1900_to_2015.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconducti... The trick is that since a few years the different groups are using an extremely high pressure. So a combination of a material and pressure that shows superconductivity at room temperature is new, but not unexpected. (A material that is a superconductor at room temperature and atmospheric pressure would be a more interesting and surprising. I'd wait until it is reproduced before throwing a party. )
jiggawatts 6y ago
I just read through the paper. TL;DR: They compared the metallurgy of two different samples, which IMHO totally invalidates the result. The setup revolves primarily around "Johnson-Matthey purifiers", which are made by a manufacturer for industrial hydrogen gas purification. It isn't designed to have calibrated or consistent metallurgy for this kind of scientific experiment. They're essentially a long Pd-Ag tube sealed in a stainless steel pressure vessel and also the tubes have supporting stainless steel springs inside them. The experimenters had only two(!) of these filters, both sealed in the factory. They had to cut them open to access the Pd-Ag tubes inside for analysis. A) This is a destructive test, so they had no way to run the experiment on one tube for longer and longer periods to demonstrate a steady increase in the contaminants. B) They didn't take a control measurement of either tube before commencing the experiment. c) They have no reason to assume that the metal purity of the tubes is anywhere near consistent enough to compare two different tubes, which are likely to have been manufactured on different dates from different metal sources and hence would not be consistent enough for this kind of experiment. D) Individual tubes could also have had point-to-point variations, which they claim is the result, not the error! That's insane. E) This is a long-running experiment (months) with many actions taken on the filters. Connections and disconnections of gas sources, high temperature cycling, flushing with various gases, etc... It's entirely conceivable that a contaminant got into the tubes. Essentially, the only scientific way to run an experiment like this is to manufacture a tube yourself, using either very high purity metals or a very well characterised and homogeneous alloy. Then you'd have to take samples at multiple points along the tube and at several different times during the experiment. You'd also want to make sure that the entire experiment is housed in a metal that is similarly well characterised. At least a dozen such setups would need to be run in parallel, using the exact same setup except for gases used. They did none of this. They simply noticed a filter got hot, cut it open, and assumed that what they measured was an increase relative to a different unused filter they had lying around. This is garbage science.
- raziel2701 6y ago
  Yep, this is crap, contaminants is the most likely and easiest explanation. This whole pressure to publish at any cost is killing science.
beervirus 6y ago
I'm staring at a periodic table trying to make sense of how deuterium, silver, and/or palladium might even conceivable be transmuted into zinc, copper, or iron. I'm not seeing anything plausible. Probably just contamination.
im3w1l 6y ago
So one thing is was thinking about. The other day we saw a paper about room-temperature super conduction right? That field has a seen a long gradual progress. But cold fusion "field" seems to be trying to go from nothing to everything in one step? Is there anyone who has been successful lowering the temperature required by even a single degree Celsius? And to make it even easier, let's include fusion that does not produce net energy.
torotonnato 6y ago
Old paper about excess Helium in D loaded Palladium - http://www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-FUS.pdf http://www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-... I don't understand why experts cannot accept the challenge. There is something happening that is unexpected (modulo some reproducibility issues)? Investigate, jeez
- gnufx 6y ago
  In the absence of real nuclear physics data, the only thing available for experts to criticize if the lack of those data.
  - torotonnato 6y ago
    Absence is a bit of a stretch. Look at that paper, it's interesting
    - gnufx 6y ago
      You'd have to help me on that one.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  The experts don't have time to wade through an endless stream of bad science. At some point, this will all go the same way as the Victorian fad of photographs of faeries.

80 points by ogcricket 6y ago

Detecting the presence of these transmuted elements should be much easier to replicate than trying to characterize "excess" heat, right? And the next step would be to try and find out what isotope of the transmuted elements was? Anyone know how much deuterium costs? https://thenewfire.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/nasa_transmutations_palladium_silver_metals_with_deuterium_gas_2020.pdf https://thenewfire.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/nasa_transmut...

dumbfoundded 6y ago
It depends. The transmuted elements could be viewed as contaminants while it'd be hard to explain away excess heat. There are so many sources of potential contamination. Random heat signatures not so much.
- jiggawatts 6y ago
  It's the opposite. Heat is notoriously difficult to measure accurately, especially when small amounts are being produced or if the experiment runs over a long time. Heat can also have many sources, some of which aren't expected by even highly experienced experimenters. For example, hydrogen has spin isomers, and the conversion of orthohydrogen into parahydrogen releases energy. Metals like palladium can also release surprising amounts of energy due to lattice or adsorption effects. Graphite absorbs neutrons in reactors and can store sufficient energy in the lattice structure defects that it's a hazard if released too quickly. Electrical interference can produce currents that are absorbed in the metal. Residual magnetic fields release energy if the metal is demagnetised. Etc... Meanwhile, measuring the production of new elements is trivial, even in tiny amounts, and cannot possibly occur via only chemical processes. Crystal structure, phase transitions, external fields, etc... have no effect on this measurement. It is a simple, reliable, accurate measurement. If you see a scientist insisting that you pay attention to the unreliable metric and waves his hands to explain why you should ignore the reliable metric then it's a safe bet that he's either fooling you, or he fooled himself.
  - raziel2701 6y ago
    Yeah but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Right now the easiest explanation is contamination, ordinary and easy to explain.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      No. Claims Require Evidence. Maybe it's contamination. Maybe it is something interesting. Ordinary evidence will reveal which. Demanding extraordinary evidence is just defending turf, and not science.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        The level of evidence required increases with the audacity of the claim. That's because outrageous new physics is almost never the case, for the same reason that miracles or aliens are almost never (or just never) the explanation for something.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        "Extraordinary evidence" is usually interpreted, nowadays, as unobtainable evidence, with the effect that any discovery incompatible with current consensus is reflexively discounted. This is less often harmful in cases where the current consensus is based more on actual evidence than on groupthink and conformity. So, in physics, there is actual evidence for most things observable. But there are plenty of fields where fashion prevails. Without citing current problem children, geology until quite recently forbade mention of catastrophic events like bolide strikes, and psychology filtered all hypotheses through behaviorism.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        It's evidence so incontrovertible and ironcland that the chance it is wrong (or faked) is less than the chance the outrageous claim is true. This could be close to unobtainable, for sufficiently outrageous claims. The argument I am making goes all the way back to Hume's "Of Miracles". In the specific case of Cold Fusion and the like, the evidence is further impeached by the lack of progress. What's happening looks just like a pseudoscientific study of nothing that spits out bad results that never goes anywhere.

pjkundert 6y ago

Tests showing similar results were presented at the 2012 LENR conference, and probably before. I really wish they hadn’t been discounted as erroneous without attempts to replicate by the larger scientific community. We’d be much farther along by now, in capturing this extremely interesting result!

cromwellian 6y ago
But what about a control experiment? How about letting the PdAg sit in a vacuum for the same amount of time under similar conditions and see what develops? How do they rule out contamination, such as by cosmic rays?
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  If I read the abstract right, they did in fact have a control. They had the exact same palladium/silver mix in it, but didn't cycle D2, H2, or He in and out. It wound up with much fewer of the surprising elements.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Couldn't that be explained by the cycling introducing contamination (ie: along with the D2, H2, He it also brought in a few other atoms from the plumping or whatever)?
    - Filligree 6y ago
      Easily.
  - jiggawatts 6y ago
    But the "control" wasn't. It was a different coil, and they didn't characterise either of the coils' metallurgy prior to the experiment.
  - lumost 6y ago
    The addition of deuterium will open new avenues for reactions by cosmic rays.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

So cold fusion was real after all? They've got both transmutation of elements and excess heat.

est 6y ago
but what about gamma rays?
marcinzm 6y ago
As someone else pointed out, the transmuted elements are also what's common in the equipment they presumably used so could be just contamination. I believe they didn't find any elements you'd expect from these types of reactions but also wouldn't see in the equipment.

msie 6y ago

The experiment took place over several months which increases the chances of contamination.

HarryHirsch 6y ago
And all the newly found elements are elements that you'd find in a gas regulator and are at levels close to detection limit. It's all so reminiscent of polywater.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Yes that would have been my initial thought as well From the article: "Examining the exposed Pd25Ag tube reveals a scattering of anomalies on the surface of the tube. Large areas of Cu were observed as well as an area of Zn separate from the Cu, which may indicate that no CueZn alloy is present, removing the possibility of brass contamination. "
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    Zinc plating and copper plating? But that's not really the point, we are wondering about all sorts of contamination that could easily be ruled out through proper experiment design. Other people have discussed that.

amluto 6y ago

https://sci-hub.st/downloads/2020-10-06/8f/10.1016@j.ijhydene.2020.08.287.pdf https://sci-hub.st/downloads/2020-10-06/8f/10.1016@j.ijhyden...

gus_massa 6y ago

The anomalous heating is very difficult to measure and it is not going to convince anyone. The new elements they got, are much more interesting. The problem is that: * Cooper and Zinc that are the parts of brass. * Iron, Chrome and Manganese that are common in stainless steel. So the most simple explanation is contamination from the surrounding vessel and plumbing. It is also very strange that they didn't get Cadmium and Indium that are the direct product of fusion of Palladium and Silver with Hydrogen, Deuterium and Helium. It is like if there was a fusion and then the new atom split into smaller atoms like all the ones I listed before. It is strange.

dumbfoundded 6y ago
The odds that cold fusion has been discovered are 0.
- jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
  I really think cold fusion is a prank. Like when my dad would send me out to buy "headlight fluid" just to mess with me.
  - dumbfoundded 6y ago
    I think it's like trying to prove P = NP. Maybe it's technically possible, but no one in their right mind thinks it's going to happen.
    - jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
      As far as I can tell, the only reason cold fusion is even a thing is because someone published a paper that has never been reproduced. P=NP is at least possible: it has to be true or untrue. I'm not even sure if our current understand of physics even supports cold fusion. I guess maybe it does seeing as how I got downvoted? Presumably by amazing scientists who have developed cold fusion technology? Or at least have a theory of how it could happen in our universe?

andrewflnr 6y ago

"International Journey of Hydrogen Energy"? Is this a real thing?

colechristensen 6y ago
Yes, it is an Elsevier journal. Specifically, it is not one of the citation mill fake journals which will publish anything.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  This paper does them no credit, though. Cold fusion hs associated with the crazy fringe, and for very good reasons.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    As long as it's good work by credible scientists and filled with caveats about being a work in progress and that it may turn out to be nothing, I don't see the issue.
    - HarryHirsch 6y ago
      This paper is just crap, a contamination problem sold as a breakthrough. It's worse in cold fusion, cold fusion in palladium is almost feasible, given the low energy barrier for D-D fusion. The setting is quite like the lifetime of the proton, a decaying proton would open up new avenues of theory, unfortunately the next prediction for the half-life is just outside experimental capabilities. Anyway, first thing you do when you see a new paper is check what's journal it's in. If the journal has a crap reputation you skip it. This paper does nothing to improve the journal's standing, so the papers in there must be the usual "nothing new to see here, let's all move on" junk.

ggm 6y ago

Hard not to be sceptical. We could indulge the "but what if its true" but the energy balance would be very unfavourable and, absent "yes we have no neutrons" (being the title of the cold fusion book of record), its not emitting energy in a way consistent with science as we understand it.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Please be true! Cold fusion :) Interesting trivia: AuPd alloys are used for coating insulating surfaces with ~10 nm thick layer to make the surface conductive with small metallic grains to do high resolution scanning electron microscopy. https://ravescientific.com/education/37-proper-target-material-selection-when-coating-samples-using-an-sem-sputter-coater https://ravescientific.com/education/37-proper-target-materi... This particular % is not typically used (60/40 or 80/20 is), but it is close.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

zaroth 6y ago

Last week we got cold superconduction. What would the trifecta be? EM drive working probably. Maybe the universe is trying to balance out the cosmic 2020 scale.

ncmncm 6y ago
Cold superconduction is pretty familiar.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Ugh, that should have read warm. Warm superconductors, cold fusion, next up would be EM drive.
  - gus_massa 6y ago
    But in high temperature superconductivity there has been an steady progress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity#/media/File:Timeline_of_Superconductivity_from_1900_to_2015.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconducti... The trick is that since a few years the different groups are using an extremely high pressure. So a combination of a material and pressure that shows superconductivity at room temperature is new, but not unexpected. (A material that is a superconductor at room temperature and atmospheric pressure would be a more interesting and surprising. I'd wait until it is reproduced before throwing a party. )

jiggawatts 6y ago

I just read through the paper. TL;DR: They compared the metallurgy of two different samples, which IMHO totally invalidates the result. The setup revolves primarily around "Johnson-Matthey purifiers", which are made by a manufacturer for industrial hydrogen gas purification. It isn't designed to have calibrated or consistent metallurgy for this kind of scientific experiment. They're essentially a long Pd-Ag tube sealed in a stainless steel pressure vessel and also the tubes have supporting stainless steel springs inside them. The experimenters had only two(!) of these filters, both sealed in the factory. They had to cut them open to access the Pd-Ag tubes inside for analysis. A) This is a destructive test, so they had no way to run the experiment on one tube for longer and longer periods to demonstrate a steady increase in the contaminants. B) They didn't take a control measurement of either tube before commencing the experiment. c) They have no reason to assume that the metal purity of the tubes is anywhere near consistent enough to compare two different tubes, which are likely to have been manufactured on different dates from different metal sources and hence would not be consistent enough for this kind of experiment. D) Individual tubes could also have had point-to-point variations, which they claim is the result, not the error! That's insane. E) This is a long-running experiment (months) with many actions taken on the filters. Connections and disconnections of gas sources, high temperature cycling, flushing with various gases, etc... It's entirely conceivable that a contaminant got into the tubes. Essentially, the only scientific way to run an experiment like this is to manufacture a tube yourself, using either very high purity metals or a very well characterised and homogeneous alloy. Then you'd have to take samples at multiple points along the tube and at several different times during the experiment. You'd also want to make sure that the entire experiment is housed in a metal that is similarly well characterised. At least a dozen such setups would need to be run in parallel, using the exact same setup except for gases used. They did none of this. They simply noticed a filter got hot, cut it open, and assumed that what they measured was an increase relative to a different unused filter they had lying around. This is garbage science.

raziel2701 6y ago
Yep, this is crap, contaminants is the most likely and easiest explanation. This whole pressure to publish at any cost is killing science.

beervirus 6y ago

I'm staring at a periodic table trying to make sense of how deuterium, silver, and/or palladium might even conceivable be transmuted into zinc, copper, or iron. I'm not seeing anything plausible. Probably just contamination.

im3w1l 6y ago

So one thing is was thinking about. The other day we saw a paper about room-temperature super conduction right? That field has a seen a long gradual progress. But cold fusion "field" seems to be trying to go from nothing to everything in one step? Is there anyone who has been successful lowering the temperature required by even a single degree Celsius? And to make it even easier, let's include fusion that does not produce net energy.

torotonnato 6y ago

Old paper about excess Helium in D loaded Palladium - http://www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-FUS.pdf http://www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-... I don't understand why experts cannot accept the challenge. There is something happening that is unexpected (modulo some reproducibility issues)? Investigate, jeez

gnufx 6y ago
In the absence of real nuclear physics data, the only thing available for experts to criticize if the lack of those data.
- torotonnato 6y ago
  Absence is a bit of a stretch. Look at that paper, it's interesting
  - gnufx 6y ago
    You'd have to help me on that one.
pfdietz 6y ago
The experts don't have time to wade through an endless stream of bad science. At some point, this will all go the same way as the Victorian fad of photographs of faeries.