Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Cold fusion systems use lattices such as palladium, nickel and titanium to produce nuclear products
and heat. The (lattice) heat results from the HIGH ENERGY of the first excited state, such as the He4* state . . .
So you are saying it should not be considered "Low Energy" (as in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), but rather High Energy on a microscopic scale.
'LENR' is more amorphous, perhaps because it was in part an attempt to avoid
the use of the words: 'cold fusion'.
It probably was an attempt to avoid that term. It was a euphemism, in other words. Euphemisms never work for long. The taboo that gives rise to the euphemism quickly attaches to the new word.
Anyway, it now also encompasses phenomena which have far less to zero credibility, of which a long list could be given from rotating water machines to putative biological transmutation.
That seems a little unfair. What a word "encompasses" depends upon the speaker and his intentions. Most mainstream researchers, such as Peter Hagelstein, have in mind only metal lattice cold fusion when they say "LENR." On the other hand many skeptics accuse "cold fusion" including kinds of other reported over-unity devices such as magnetic motors.
As for the biological transmutations, I have no idea whether they are correct or not, but I do not see how they could be related to metal lattice CF, because there is no metal in living cells. The rotating machines at Hydrodynamics produce cavitation, so if anything they are related to the sonofusion effects described by Stringham or Putterman. Whether that, in turn, has any connection with CF I cannot judge, but I am pretty sure that the Hydrodynamics machine does sometimes produce excess energy. I am not aware that Swartz has demonstrated an error in the calorimetry used at Hydrodynamics. If he has not, this is mere empty opinion, no better than the average uninformed skeptical assertion about CF. People who do not believe a claim do not get a free pass. They have to prove their point as rigorously as those who believe a claim do. It does not make a difference how controversial or unlikely the claim may be, although it is usually easier to rigorously disprove a far-fetched claim, such as a magnetic motor.
- Jed
