I am sorry, there is no such paper. So, like you say in the other, it will be an endless cycle of discussion.
Anyway, as I see it, the objection to LENR is of theoretical basis, since it would apparently require that nearly all nuclear physics would have to be abandoned to conform with experiments which always shows small excesses. This is like 3 years ago when the violation of the speed of light was seen with a certainty of 95% at the MINOS experiment. But it wasnt taken seriously because since it was blatant violation of speed of light and something much more crazier than cold fusion. Given that 99.999% of certainty flukes are seen, this was ignored, although measuring speed is something that even with lower certainty is harder to ignore since it is less prone to statistical uncertainty, in most usual experiments. Mind that given that neutrino experiments deal with simpler statistics than in larger experiments, lower confidence levels are usually taken more seriously. Now, that was seen in another experiment, OPERA, at 99.99999% (6 sigma or so) of certainty, people start taking it slightly more seriously. Now, with those guys, it seems to me that nuclear physics doesnt need to be falsified, so I am OK with research in LENR. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> Date: 2011/11/19 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gain from the "cold side" To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I'm sorry but if the above information is for me, I don't care about theoretical papers very much. I have no problem with the potential feasibility of comparatively low temperature nuclear reactions. Perhaps that's because I am not a nuclear physicist but either way it's fine. I am not looking for information on why it might happen. I am looking for a "killer" paper that proves it *did* happen. I keep hearing from Jed Rothwell and others that such papers are around but whenever I look at something about cold fusion it's usually theoretical.
