[Vo]:the story behind free pdfs of 34 cold fusion papers in Current Science 104(4) 574-7, 2015.02.25: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax: Rich Murray 2015.02.24

[Rich Murray]

the story behind free pdfs of 34 cold fusion papers in Current Science
104(4) 574-7, 2015.02.25: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax: Rich Murray 2015.02.24


Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax,
Current Science 104(4) 574-7, 2015.02.25 free pdfs of 34 papers: Rich
Murray 2015.02.24
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/02/replicable-cold-fusion-experiment.html


Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com [newvortex] <
newvor...@yahoogroups.com>
4:59 PM (5 hours ago) Tuesday. 2015.02.24

to newvortex

The entire journal:

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/toc.php?vol=108&issue=04

The special section alone, 34 papers:

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactions&featid=10094

And, of course, my paper: "Replicable cold fusion experiment:
heat/helium ratio"
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf

All the papers in that section may be discussed on Wikversity:

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Current_Science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Science

Some general information about this.
Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal established in 1932,
published by the Current Science Association in collaboration with the
Indian Academy of Sciences.



Last year, the editors of the section solicited papers from
researchers in the field of LENR.
These papers went through two reviews, first by the special section editors
and then, if the editors decided to forward the paper, by a normal peer
reviewer
assigned by Current Science.

The anonymous reviewer of my paper was familiar with physics and not with
cold fusion, and was skeptical at first.
Yes, I modified my paper extensively in response to his critique and it is,
no doubt,
better for it.
Apparently, he was convinced, he gave a glowing recommendation for
publication.

There are some very good papers in this collection, and others that are
brief reports on activity in various nations or organizations.

I specially recommend McKubre's paper,
"Cold fusion: comments on the state of scientific proof"

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0495.pdf

But there are *many* excellent papers.

One might notice that we are not being shy about using the term "cold
fusion."  Times change.

It's fusion, get over it.

("Fusion" is a result, not a mechanism. The mechanism is a mystery.)

Posted by: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 

Re: [Vo]:Current Science, Special Section: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

[Jed Rothwell]

I meant 34 papers. Here are the titles in the EndNote default format:

1. Azizi, O., et al., *Progress towards understanding anomalous heat effect
in metal deuterides.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

2. Biberian, J.P., *Biological transmutations.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

3. Cravens, D., M.R. Swartz, and B.S. Ahern, *Condensed matter nuclear
reactions with metal particles in gases.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

4. Dong, Z.M., C.L. Liang, and X.Z. Li, *Condensed matter nuclear science
research status in China.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

5. Hagelstein, P.L. and I. Chaudhary, *Phonon models for anomalies in
condensed matter nuclear science.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

6. Hagelstein, P.L., *Directional X-ray and gamma emission in experiments
in condensed matter nuclear science.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

7. Hubler, G.K., et al., *Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear
Renaissance.* Curr.
Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

8. Iwamura, Y., T. Itoh, and S. Tsuruga, *Transmutation reactions induced
by deuterium permeation through nano-structured palladium multilayer thin
film.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

9. Kidwell, D., et al., *Observation of radio frequency emissions from
electrochemical loading experiments.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

10. Kitamura, A., et al., *Brief summary of latest experimental results
with a mass-flow calorimetry system for anomalous heat effect of
nano-composite metals under D(H)-gas charging.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

11. Kitamura, A., *Status of cold fusion research in Japan.* Curr. Sci.,
2015. *108*(4).

12. Letts, D., *Highly reproducible LENR experiments using dual laser
stimulation.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

13. Liang, C.L., Z.M. Dong, and X.Z. Li, *Selective resonant tunnelling --
turning hydrogen-storage material into energetic material.* Curr. Sci.,
2015. *108*(4).

14. Lomax, A., *Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio.* Curr.
Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

15. McKubre, M.C.H., *Cold fusion: comments on the state of scientific
proof.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

16. Meulenberg, A., *Extensions to physics: what cold fusion teaches.* Curr.
Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

17. Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., *Use of CR-39 detectors to determine the
branching ratio in Pd/D co-deposition.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

18. Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., *Condensed matter nuclear reaction products
observed in Pd/D co-deposition experiments.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

19. Nagel, D.J., *Energy gains from lattice-enabled nuclear reactions.* Curr.
Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

20. Nagel, D.J., *Lattice-enabled nuclear reactions in the nickel and
hydrogen gas system.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

21. Sinha, A., *Model of low energy nuclear reactions in a solid matrix
with defects.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

22. Srinivasan, M. and A. Meulenberg, *Preface.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

23. Srinivasan, M., *Observation of neutrons and tritium in the early BARC
cold fusion experiments.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

24. Srinivasan, M., *Introduction to isotopic shifts and transmutations
observed in LENR experiments.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

25. Storms, E., *How the explanation of LENR can be made consistent with
observed behaviour and natural laws.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

26. Storms, E., *Introduction to the main experimental findings of the LENR
field.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

27. Swartz, M.R., et al., *Dry, preloaded NANOR (R)-type CF/LANR
components.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

28. Takahashi, A., *Development status of condensed cluster fusion
theory.* Curr.
Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

29. Valat, M., R. Hunt, and R. Greenyer, *Martin Fleischmann Memorial
Project status review.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

30. Verner, G.M., M.R. Swartz, and P.L. Hagelstein, *Summary report:
‘Introduction to Cold Fusion’ -- IAP course at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, USA.* Curr. Sci., 2015.*108*(4).

31. Violante, V., et al., *Review of materials science for studying the
Fleischmann and Pons effect.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

32. Vysotskii, V. and M. Vysotskii, *Coherent correlated states of
interacting particles – the possible key to paradoxes and features of
LENR.* Curr.
Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

33. Vysotskii, V., A.A. Kornilova, and A.O. Vasilenko, *Observation and
investigation of anomalous X-ray and thermal effects of cavitation.* Curr.
Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

34. Vysotskii, V. and A.A. Kornilova, *Microbial transmutation of Cs-137
and LENR in growing biological systems.* Curr. Sci., 2015. *108*(4).

[Vo]:Metastable Innershell Molecular State (MIMS) - This is not femto atoms

[Daniel Rocha]

It's binding atoms with their innershells.

It's free:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379714000515

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960114009256

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/02/confirmation-of-ultra-high-energy.html


Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:almost the expected flow of LENR information today

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Friends,

Just published:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/02/tactical-lenr-battles-week-day-2.html

Going back for continuing search and hunting. Wish me luck, please!

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:The hidden problem with Lithium

[Jones Beene]

Here is a paper worth reading as background for understanding the
"possibility" of a hidden lithium depletion problem. This problem could
relate to why "cold fusion" has historically been hard to replicate (if the
electrolyte contained LiOH with the depleted light isotope).

http://paperzz.com/doc/3108333/selective-resonant-tunnelling-%E2%80%93-turn-
the-hydrogen

The paper does not mention the problem of (hidden) depletion in lithium -
i.e. lithium-6 removal - which is a little-discussed but a potentially major
problem --- and which could actually serve to nullify gain in any dogbone
reactors fueled with depleted material. Of course, so no one knows the real
source of gain now, but if it relates to Li-6 content, then there is a
problem for many experimenters in not being able to get hold of the most
active isotope. However, pure isotopes can be bought, as mentioned here
before and that may be a key to success.

Natural lithium has two stable isotopes, Li-6 and Li-7, with the latter
being far more abundant: about 92.5% BUT --- the former being far more
valuable to the military. Li-6 could also be more valuable to LENR because
of some parameter which shows up differently in LENR - we simply do not
know. What we do know is that commercial sources may not contain the
expected 7% because of regulations which allow depleted lithium to be sold
as natural.  

In short, both natural Li isotopes have an unexpectedly low nuclear binding
but Li-6 may be more active but not as the source of tritium. Since Li-6 is
extremely valuable to the Pentagon as the source of tritium, large amounts
are (were) separated out (historically) and the remainder then resold as
"lithium" but without the purchaser realizing the level of depletion. Much
of the depleted material is still on the market, as lithium batteries are
recycled over and over. For instance, almost all of the lithium which was
produced 100 years ago is still in circulation, and lithium which was
depleted during the cold war is found in new batteries. (where the level
depletion is totally immaterial)

Note: Tritium has not been detected in the dogbone and it would be easily
detected if there - so if Li-6 is more active for thermal gain - it is for a
different reason. The paper above seems to suggest one way this could
happen, but there is another way as well (probably several).

Jones

[Vo]:Current Science, Special Section: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

[Jed Rothwell]

The journal Current Science, Vol. 108, No. 4, published on February 25,
2015 includes 35 papers about cold fusion, Special Section: Low Energy
Nuclear Reactions. The online edition is here:

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/cissue.php

Re: [Vo]:Proposed YouTube introduction to cold fusion

[Blaze Spinnaker]

I think what people don't get is that there are probably dozens if not at
least a 100 or so labs trying to replicate lugano.   It's likely some % of
those labs are going to make make measurement errors.And some % of that
are going to report without proper review.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> Just get MFMP to replicate Parkhomov.   That'll go viral instantly.   I
> find it unlikely it will happen.  I'm sure if it could be replicated
> someone would have already done so by now.
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> I have been thinking about a YouTube video 3 to 6 minutes long to
>> introduce cold fusion. The goal would be to increase interest in the field.
>> Ideally, it would be great to provoke a viral reaction attracting thousands
>> of viewers. Possibly even millions. I personally am not capable of making
>> something like this. It should be done by a professional producer. Here is
>> what I think it should be like.
>>
>>
>> Three ideas are presented:
>>
>> Cold fusion has been widely replicated.
>>
>> It remains difficult to replicate because control parameters are
>> difficult to achieve.
>>
>> If researchers learn to control cold fusion, it might become a valuable
>> source of energy.
>>
>>
>> In more detail, the script would be something like this:
>>
>> Cold fusion was announced by professors Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. It
>> is a nuclear reaction that produces heat without burning chemical fuel. It
>> produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does. It
>> sometimes produces tritium. Helium and tritium are unmistakable signs of a
>> nuclear reaction.
>>
>> [Display for the above paragraph: A few words perhaps: “Cold fusion was
>> announced in 1989. It is a nuclear reaction producing heat, helium and
>> tritium.” No graph of heat and helium because that is too complicated.]
>>
>>
>> Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of major
>> laboratories. This graph shows results from several tests performed at two
>> different laboratories. When loading exceeds 0.92, the effect turns on.
>>
>> [Display: McKubre graph 1, Maximum loading,
>> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg.
>> Under graph it says “Combined results from SRI and ENEA (Italian National
>> Agency for New Technologies, Energy)”]
>>
>>
>> Cold fusion remains difficult to replicate because it occurs under rare
>> conditions that are difficult to achieve, but when these conditions are
>> achieved, the reaction always turns on. The strength of the reaction varies
>> with current density, loading and other control parameters. [1] Again, high
>> loading and high current density can be difficult to reach, but when
>> researchers manage to reach them, the reaction always turns on. This graph
>> also shows that high loading correlates with high heat; each dot represents
>> one test. [2] Here are similar results from Toyota. [3]
>>
>> [Display: 1.
>> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg,
>> under graph it says "SRI" The graphs on this screen are animated. 2.
>> McKubre graph of loading. 3. Kunimatsu graph overlays SRI, label on screen
>> "IMRA (Toyota research lab),"
>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KunimatsuKdeuteriuml.pdf]
>>
>>
>> Cold fusion has reached temperatures and power density roughly as high as
>> the core of a nuclear fission reactor. If researchers can learn to control
>> cold fusion and make it occur on demand, it might become a practical source
>> of energy. It would provide inexhaustible energy for billions of years.
>> Because it consumes hydrogen in a nuclear process, rather than a chemical
>> process, the hydrogen generates millions of times more energy than any
>> chemical fuel such as oil. It would also eliminate the threat of global
>> warming because it does not produce carbon dioxide.
>>
>> Hydrogen fuel is virtually free, and cold fusion devices are small,
>> relatively simple, and inexpensive. They resemble NiCad batteries. So the
>> cost of the energy would be low.
>>
>> For more information, see LENR.org
>>
>> [Links to this paper by McKubre, or something similar:
>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf]
>>
>>
>>
>> NOTES
>>
>> The main goal is to attract as many viewers as possible, perhaps even
>> triggering a viral response. Another goal is to overturn the viewer's
>> notions about cold fusion, but not by challenging those notions directly or
>> by arguing. We present the facts and let them speak for themselves. This
>> has to be technically accurate with no exaggerations or false promises.
>>
>> The choice of messages seems self-evident to me. What else do we have to
>> say? The difficult part is to present this in a way that people find
>> compelling. Will people find this compelling? Can it go viral? I do not
>> know.
>>
>> This draft may present too much detail. It may need fewer topics with
>> more repetition. This text takes m

Re: [Vo]:Proposed YouTube introduction to cold fusion

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Just get MFMP to replicate Parkhomov.   That'll go viral instantly.   I
find it unlikely it will happen.  I'm sure if it could be replicated
someone would have already done so by now.

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I have been thinking about a YouTube video 3 to 6 minutes long to
> introduce cold fusion. The goal would be to increase interest in the field.
> Ideally, it would be great to provoke a viral reaction attracting thousands
> of viewers. Possibly even millions. I personally am not capable of making
> something like this. It should be done by a professional producer. Here is
> what I think it should be like.
>
>
> Three ideas are presented:
>
> Cold fusion has been widely replicated.
>
> It remains difficult to replicate because control parameters are difficult
> to achieve.
>
> If researchers learn to control cold fusion, it might become a valuable
> source of energy.
>
>
> In more detail, the script would be something like this:
>
> Cold fusion was announced by professors Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. It
> is a nuclear reaction that produces heat without burning chemical fuel. It
> produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does. It
> sometimes produces tritium. Helium and tritium are unmistakable signs of a
> nuclear reaction.
>
> [Display for the above paragraph: A few words perhaps: “Cold fusion was
> announced in 1989. It is a nuclear reaction producing heat, helium and
> tritium.” No graph of heat and helium because that is too complicated.]
>
>
> Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in hundreds of major
> laboratories. This graph shows results from several tests performed at two
> different laboratories. When loading exceeds 0.92, the effect turns on.
>
> [Display: McKubre graph 1, Maximum loading,
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-1.jpg.
> Under graph it says “Combined results from SRI and ENEA (Italian National
> Agency for New Technologies, Energy)”]
>
>
> Cold fusion remains difficult to replicate because it occurs under rare
> conditions that are difficult to achieve, but when these conditions are
> achieved, the reaction always turns on. The strength of the reaction varies
> with current density, loading and other control parameters. [1] Again, high
> loading and high current density can be difficult to reach, but when
> researchers manage to reach them, the reaction always turns on. This graph
> also shows that high loading correlates with high heat; each dot represents
> one test. [2] Here are similar results from Toyota. [3]
>
> [Display: 1.
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg,
> under graph it says "SRI" The graphs on this screen are animated. 2.
> McKubre graph of loading. 3. Kunimatsu graph overlays SRI, label on screen
> "IMRA (Toyota research lab),"
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KunimatsuKdeuteriuml.pdf]
>
>
> Cold fusion has reached temperatures and power density roughly as high as
> the core of a nuclear fission reactor. If researchers can learn to control
> cold fusion and make it occur on demand, it might become a practical source
> of energy. It would provide inexhaustible energy for billions of years.
> Because it consumes hydrogen in a nuclear process, rather than a chemical
> process, the hydrogen generates millions of times more energy than any
> chemical fuel such as oil. It would also eliminate the threat of global
> warming because it does not produce carbon dioxide.
>
> Hydrogen fuel is virtually free, and cold fusion devices are small,
> relatively simple, and inexpensive. They resemble NiCad batteries. So the
> cost of the energy would be low.
>
> For more information, see LENR.org
>
> [Links to this paper by McKubre, or something similar:
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf]
>
>
>
> NOTES
>
> The main goal is to attract as many viewers as possible, perhaps even
> triggering a viral response. Another goal is to overturn the viewer's
> notions about cold fusion, but not by challenging those notions directly or
> by arguing. We present the facts and let them speak for themselves. This
> has to be technically accurate with no exaggerations or false promises.
>
> The choice of messages seems self-evident to me. What else do we have to
> say? The difficult part is to present this in a way that people find
> compelling. Will people find this compelling? Can it go viral? I do not
> know.
>
> This draft may present too much detail. It may need fewer topics with more
> repetition. This text takes me ~2.5 minutes to read. With animated graphs
> and some pauses it would be 3 or 4 minutes. A few more details, with more
> repetition would bring it to 6 minutes. I am tempted to add this detail
> from Roulette et al, but I think it is too much, and it strains credulity:
> "A few cold fusion devices the size of a coin have produced heat at 100 W
> continuously for months. This much chemical fuel would last only a few
> minutes."