Another LENR theory which seems to fit smoothly to help explain the Holmlid effect and possibly to do so in a more accurate way compared to UDD theory, involves the "binuclear atom" of Cerofolini (combined with the beryllim-8 anomaly),
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.40685 The author presents the binuclear helium-like atom (D+D+)2e− where the nuclear separation is of the order of 0.5x Bohr radius - and which is a metastable configuration which can be formed during the loading of deuterium into host metals like nickel, palladium or hematite. Based on the effective size of the cavity in these hosts, two binuclear deuterons (4 identical nucleons) should fit nicely to provide the necessary inventory for beryllium formation. This approach has some relevance to Mills' ideas, as well. When irradiated with a laser as in the Holmlid effect, two adjoining binuclear D atoms would occasionally fuse to form Beryllium-8 which is highly unstable, and which then emits the new boson species (instead of muons) as it decays. This avoids the objections to muons which have been voiced - and also avoids the problems of a 24 MeV gamma. After all, muons are not "dark" as is the new boson, so they should have been obvious. Consequently, this alternative explanation could be preferable to ultra-dense deuterium, especially if it can be shown that remote positronium decay is seen. Holmlid may not like it, and neither would Krasznahorkay but it is worth consideration, thanks to Cerofolini. It is possible, given the circumstances of beryllium isotope instability that fusion all the way to Be-8 does not occur, but instead the laser compression induces a formative Be-8 nucleus along with fused helium (two alphas) to carry away the excess energy, with the new boson. Being weakly interacting - the new boson would disperse a considerable distance from the reactor before decay and that way - it could have gone unnoticed before (whereas muons should have reacted with the reactor vessel but did not). Jones Krasznahorkay and others from the Hungarian Institute for Nuclear Research, on a very limited budget, recently reaffirmed a spectacular discovery made 4 years ago and partially validated by others. If true, their findings could be complementary and perhaps even more important than the Higgs. This prospect (fame) - in a way actually threatens the geniuses at CERN - given the large disparity in funds employed. Thus the lack of enthusiasm from that sector is evident and we can expect intransigence to continue - plus an unwillingness to review own LHC data for confirmation - since it should be there. The mystery finding is apparently best explained as a ~16.7 MeV neutral particle -- not the dark photon, which was an early aim but "dark" nevertheless (weakly interacting). It is yet to be named but could help explain the results of Holmlid's experiments with laser irradiation of dense deuterium - where muons were suspected but not proved. That work is another earth-shaking discovery which is generally ignored by the mainstream, and discovered on even less of a budget. On the off-chance that this Hungarian discovery proves correct and explains Holmlid - here is suggested name for it, and a simple way to validate the connection. The suggested name is the "Zsa boson" in honor of another famous Hungarian. The data supposedly can be explained by a vector gauge boson that decays to e+e− pairs. Others have suggested the new particle cannot be an X boson which would mediate a fifth force. Yet there is one feature of interest that is apparently agreed - that being the coupling, which is present to up and down quarks AND electrons whereas proton coupling is suppressed. Thus a suggestion to Holmlid or replicators who are on a strict budget - look for simple electron coupling at a distance. How? Well one lowest-cost possibility with lots of "impact" so to speak would be simply to place a fully charged ultra-capacitor in various positions around the target and look for the expected explosion (being careful to provide adequate safety). "Duck and cover," as we were taught in the fifties :-)
