From: Jed Rothwell

➢ This is one of the most comprehensive papers about Ni-H cold fusion:

Mengoli, G., et al., Anomalous heat effects correlated with electrochemical 
hydriding of nickel. Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A, 1998. 20 D: p. 331

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MengoliGanomaloush.pdf

➢ I have some doubts about this work, but I will refrain from discussing it for 
now, and let the readers decide.


This is a surprisingly thorough and fair paper but it is twenty years old. It 
begs to be updated. 

Among the controversial conclusions from 1998  there are several worth noting. 
First there is this: “Compared with the number of negative papers denying the 
Fleischmann-Pons effect, very few negative results on the H2O-Ni system have 
been reported”. The authors go on to reject Mills rationale and also that of 
Bush saying that “The nature of the thermal phenomenon is still very obscure. 
Mills’ hypothesis is ruled out, at least for the catalytic cycle involving 
potassium, by the positive results achieved here with Na2CO3 electrolyte. 
Bush’s hypothesis of “alkali-hydrogen fusion” is ruled out by the occurrence of 
substantial after-effects [the so-called heat-after- death phenomenon]. END of 
quote.

I think this highlights the disagreement from those who want the field to be 
related to “cold fusion” with heat coming from a P&F nuclear fusion event – in 
contrast with the view of others who accept that excess heat can result from an 
unknown non-nuclear mechanism – and that fusion is not proven to occur. 
However, there could be more than one type of anomaly which includes a side 
effect of “occasional fusion” (rare fusion due to QM tunneling - which serves 
to obscure the main effect)

Mengoli et al say the only relevant dynamic which coordinates well with excess 
heat is simply the formation of hydride and there is no indication of anything 
nuclear. Hydride formation is chemical - and for it so show the level of excess 
heat over extended periods – above that of chemistry and also for this not to 
show signs of fusion means that actual phenomenon for thermal gain was not yet 
imagined back in 1998... or else that Mills theory can be modified in some way 
(Holmlid provides the way).

If this paper were to be updated in the context of Holmlid, then a new 
possibility emerges. That explanation would begin with hydride and progress to 
a dense storable form of hydrogen – UDH. The formation of UDH alone produces 
slight thermal gain but less than nuclear. A massive amount of thermal gain due 
to hot fusion can be realized from reacting UDH with laser ignition.

 If Holmlid is correct on this last point, then the merger of cold fusion with 
hot fusion has already happened and this will become the new paradigm of 
physics.



Reply via email to