Here is a curious detail from the paper.
The paper favors the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect (so-called "neutron
stripping").
But technically the OP effect is not "cold fusion" - so the paper could be
mistitled. The OP effect resembles fission in a way. It could be called a type
of "cold fission" more accurately than cold fusion. (the Wiki entry for cold
fission is incomplete and poorly researched.)
In the simplest terms for the layman (no fourth dimension required) the OP
effect when implemented on dense deuterium in a lattice - would require lower
energy input than then standard OP plasma effect - and then have its output in
the form of something like the W-L "ultra low momentum neutron" (thus
explaining why so few neutrons are detected) and this is arguably closer to
experimental results than the usual "cold fusion" explanation.
The above does not bail-out Park, who never had a clue, even though it does
mean semantically that he was partly correct in that there is no need for
"cold fusion" at all. Helium is expected following the W-L neutron activity -
i.e. absorption of cold neuts by the matrix metal (palladium or nickel and
especially by silver which is why "type A" works).
Everything in cold fusion is explainable without the fusion of deuterons.
---------
Terry Blanton wrote:
It would be interesting to hear what Robert L. Park has to say about the
article. :)
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abstract here:
https://journals.aps.org/prc/accepted/ff073P1eKf41950715597a86203c464d727b8de5b
